Budget Deficit
	 — 
	Question

Lord Barnett: To ask Her Majesty's Government what assumptions they are currently using about what the scale of the deficit will be on 31 March 2012, and how this compares to what had been predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the last budget.

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its most recent forecast on 29 November 2011. Its forecast for public sector net borrowing in 2011-12 is £127 billion. This represented an increase of £5 billion since the forecast produced for Budget 2011. The OBR attributed the worse economic outlook to three factors: the sharp increase in global commodity prices over 2010 and 2011; the impact of the euro area crisis; and the ongoing structural impact of the financial crisis.

Lord Barnett: Actually, my Lords, I knew that. My Question was about assumptions in the Treasury; surely its officials cannot sit there twiddling their thumbs twice a year waiting for the OBR forecast. Is not the major problem that the Chancellor has concentrated to such a degree on the deficit that he has lost track of where that is taking him? The plain fact is that it is a lack of growth that is doing the damage. Now, as we know, the Chancellor has had to extend the balancing of the budget to 2017, and he may well have to extend that further. Many of the Chancellor's friends who supported him, like the IMF and the OECD, are now saying that if the position deteriorates, as it is clearly doing, then he should be more flexible. Would he consider, for example, something that would help in the short term-namely, finding the odd few billion, which would not be very much in relation to the total deficit, in order to kick-start the privately funded infrastructure plans that he has spoken about previously? Would that not at least help to alleviate some of the problems?

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, I shall try to deal with at least some of the noble Lord's supplementary questions. First, there is a process of exchanging and discussing numbers between the OBR and the Treasury under the memorandum of understanding. The details of all communications between the OBR and Ministers will be published in due course on the OBR's website, as they were in the run-up to last year's Budget.
	Secondly, on the question of the deficit reduction plan, it is interesting to look at the recent IFS green budget, which does a comparison between the coalition plans and the relatively sober Alistair Darling plans rather than the Ed Balls plans. The comparison shows that up to 2016-17 the cumulative impact of Mr Darling's policy would have been that debt under a Labour Government was £201 billion higher than it will be under the forecast for the coalition Government. As the markets have made clear this week, if we listened to suggestions about making increased spending commitments now, our interest rates would go sky high and our industry would be crippled. We are sticking to our plans, but the private sector will contribute to significant infrastructure investment of the sort that both the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I would welcome.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, despite his great experience, needs even at his age to learn a little patience? Is it not the case that if there were some short cut to resuming growth, the Government would take it?

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, it is indeed the case. If my noble friend had such a short cut, I am sure he would have told the House what it was.

Lord Soley: Is the Minister not missing the key answer, which he keeps ducking? The Chancellor has frequently said that the debt burden must be reduced and the Government will reduce it quickly. It is actually increasing. The economy contracted by 0.2 per cent in the previous quarter and will go on reducing for the foreseeable future. What has gone wrong? Never mind what other people say, what has gone wrong with the Government's plans?

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, economic growth has been weaker for reasons that include, particularly at the moment, the ongoing eurozone crisis. Inflation has been high but is now coming down significantly from its peak last September. In those circumstances, the automatic stabilisers apply and expenditure goes up. However, we are getting two very different messages from the party opposite, one implicitly urging faster consolidation and the other asking for more expenditure. Which is it to be? This Government will get borrowing down by £147 billion a year by 2016-17. That is what is important.

Lord Newby: My Lords, on Monday, Moody's said that the UK's triple A rating could be downgraded by,
	"reduced political commitment to fiscal consolidation, including discretionary fiscal loosening".
	Does the Minister have any idea what Moody's might have had in mind?

Lord Sassoon: My noble friend probably thinks that Moody's have in mind what I have in mind: the policies of Mr Ed Balls. However, the chances of those being implemented are, fortunately, small. Only yesterday, a respected City broker from BGC Partners said:
	"Ed Balls can whinge all he likes but you only have to look at a compendium of 10 year bond yields to know that the UK Chancellor, George Osborne is on the right track. For the Chancellor to take his foot off the gas in terms of cutting the debt reduction would be insanity personified!".

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, when it comes to whingeing the Government take first prize. They spend their time blaming either the previous Government or external forces. When will they take responsibility for the fact that they promised to encourage growth and have failed to do so, and promised to reduce the deficit and are failing on that? How much must the British people suffer before the Government change their policy?

Lord Sassoon: My Lords, these are very difficult economic circumstances, in this country and globally. However, to give one example of where growth policies are coming through, there are 60,000 more people in employment than there were one quarter ago. That takes the total number in employment in this country to 29.13 million-a rise of more than 250,000 in the past 18 months. We must not play down the strength of the private sector in the UK economy.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the reason why we have a problem with growth is the huge level of public expenditure that the previous Government incurred at the height of the boom? Will he give the noble Lord a reality check and tell us how much more than our income we are spending this year, and by how much the debt will have increased by the end of this Parliament?

Lord Sassoon: I completely agree with my noble friend. The point is that we will balance the books only because doing so over the five-year period is a prudent way of doing it. By that point the debt will also have started to come down. That is the way that the Government will continue to do it.

Lord Peston: The noble Lord told us all to be patient. I remind him that the great economist Lord Keynes said:
	"In the long run we are all dead".
	Is the Government's problem not that, having created this air of disaster for the country, no one in the private sector believes that the economy will get going and, therefore, no one has any intention whatever of investing in new equipment while the Government's policies are in place?

Lord Sassoon: No, my Lords, I do not accept that at all. The only disaster is the mountain of debt-the structural position-left by the previous Government. As I have explained, the signs from the private sector, whether rising exports or rising total employment in the economy, are very encouraging. It is very difficult but we have to do everything we can, including keeping interest rates low, to make business confident enough to invest for the future.

Commonwealth Countries: Trade
	 — 
	Question

Lord Empey: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to boost trade with Commonwealth countries.

Baroness Wilcox: UKTI has teams in 20 Commonwealth countries, which help British companies with business overseas and to partner with Commonwealth businesses. These 20 countries represent more than 98 per cent of the Commonwealth's GDP. In addition, Ministers and officials support the Commonwealth Business Council's events to encourage intra-Commonwealth trade and to promote the UK as a trading and investment partner. For example, my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Green spoke at the CBC's forum in Perth in October and I have to admit that I am a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

Lord Empey: The Minister knows that 50 per cent of our trade is conducted with other EU countries. These economies are mature and under great financial pressure. By contrast, the Commonwealth contains a mix of mature and emerging economies, some with significant natural resources and great potential for growth. Not wishing to have too many of our eggs in the European basket and given our special relationship with the Commonwealth, will the Minister assure the House that a vigorous approach will be taken to growing our trade with Commonwealth countries?

Baroness Wilcox: A vigorous approach is being taken by this country to invest in economies wherever we find them. However, to answer the noble Lord's question, yes we are doing marvellous business with the Commonwealth and continue to do so. The developed markets of the Commonwealth represent very good opportunities for United Kingdom businesses. For example, our trade with India continues to rise: bilateral trade in 2010 was up 20 per cent and was worth £13 billion a year. UKTI's activities through our India network of nine offices are building on this. We are moving resources more and more to high-growth markets, many of which are in Commonwealth countries such as India, South Africa, Malaysia and Singapore. However, half our exports go to EU member countries. We will continue to export and do business with every country that we possibly can.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, should we not recognise that, with all its advantages and virtues, the Commonwealth is not, and cannot be, a trading bloc because of its very diversity, from the Maldives, with its current turmoil, to India, which has just bought French aircraft over British aircraft? To be realistic, should we not look a little more productively at bilateral relations with India and Australia but also with China?

Baroness Wilcox: Yes, of course. Exports of goods from the UK to Australia-the example given by the noble Lord-were up by more than 30 per cent last year. We are certainly dealing with the European Union countries, as the noble Lord said, and with as many other countries as we can.

Lord Harrison: What evidence does the Minister have that the Commonwealth Business Council has been doing the job that is asked of it of promoting trade intra the Commonwealth? Will she examine the basis of how it is operating to see that what might be useful and successful is actually so?

Baroness Wilcox: We follow very carefully what is happening in all the organisations. I have a list of organisations to do with the Commonwealth which many Members of this House either chair, have chaired or are part of. Certainly, Commonwealth countries also make excellent springboards into other countries, so we gain not just from the countries that are in the Commonwealth but from the countries that they are close to and can give us introductions to.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the strength of the Australian currency and its marked appreciation mean that it should be possible for us to sell more products to that country? However, countries such as Australia are not a soft touch. They want quality goods from Britain and they expect people to be out there promoting and selling them. Therefore, does she not think that we want to be very much on our toes in making the most of the opportunities that exist in the Commonwealth?

Baroness Wilcox: I would have to agree with my noble friend because she is a fine and proud Australian. As I have just said, exports of goods from the UK to Australia went up by more than 30 per cent last year, so I can only presume that the goods we are turning out are of excellent quality.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, would the Minister acknowledge the role of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service at all levels, and not just commercial staff, but from heads of mission down to locally engaged staff?

Baroness Wilcox: It is my pleasure to acknowledge that. Everyone is working together. We are able to place our experts from UKTI in embassies and missions, and we are extremely grateful to them.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: Given the importance that the Government attach to involving SMEs in exporting, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in this area in relation to Commonwealth countries and what the strategy is?

Baroness Wilcox: Many SMEs look first to the nearer markets in the European single community because of the shared regulatory regime and the proximity of them. Therefore it takes extra effort on our part to make sure that we help SMEs when they go further afield. We are certainly doing so and I know for a fact that at the Intellectual Property Office we have just started to put envoys into other countries to be able to help small and medium-sized businesses when they try to export to countries to which they would find it quite daunting to export if they did not have the help of the Intellectual Property Office and the embassies.

Lord Dholakia: One of the key factors to emerge at the Commonwealth Business Council conference in Perth in Australia was the greater dependency of Australia and New Zealand on trade with the Asian Pacific zone rather than the West. Has the Minister worked out not the short-term but the long-term implications of how this will affect British trade and the British economy?

Baroness Wilcox: Our exports are up everywhere and we are talking to everyone. I just hope that if my noble friend has any more new ideas that we are missing out on he will let me have them.

Economy: Growth
	 — 
	Question

Lord Roberts of Conwy: To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to maintain and promote economic growth across the United Kingdom as a whole.

Baroness Wilcox: The Plan for Growth, published alongside the Budget in 2011, set out the Government's plan to put the United Kingdom on a path to sustainable long-term economic growth. We are creating the right conditions to enable growth, driven by investment and exports and more evenly balanced across the United Kingdom and sectors.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful for that very helpful reply. Are the Government fully aware of the growing economic disparities between the regions of the United Kingdom, accentuated by devolution in the national regions, and do the Government agree that, if we are to maintain the constitutional unity of the United Kingdom, we must present a united front in the regions on investment and economic development, otherwise we shall be in grave danger of drifting apart?

Baroness Wilcox: Yes, I agree with my noble friend. That is certainly not something that we want. The Government's primary objective is balanced growth across the United Kingdom. It is worth remembering that the United Kingdom is still one of the biggest economies in the world and that our combined strength has helped us to weather the recent economic turmoil.

Lord Touhig: Since the Welsh Government launched their £15 million economic growth plan in December, they have been inundated with requests for help, so much so that they now plan a £40 million fund to encourage SMEs. But Governments can only do so much: the real job belongs with the private sector. However, as we have seen from the figures released this week, the banks are not lending to their targets to SMEs. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that companies in Wales can access the finance they need in order to invest and grow?

Baroness Wilcox: Wales is certainly receiving all the attention that we can give it. Wales has its own way of behaving and of running itself, and that is how we think it should be. I would of course mention that we are to have the Silk commission on further devolution for Wales soon, and we shall be interested to see that next year.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that there is no balanced growth in Wales and that, at the moment, income per head in Wales is about 76 per cent of the United Kingdom average? That clearly shows massive need in both real and relative terms. Does she accept that there must be an altogether new approach to initiatives to stimulate growth in Wales?

Baroness Wilcox: I agree that Wales needs attention; that is why we are having this new piece of work done to find the very best way forward. I hope that by next year, the Silk commission will have come back with good suggestions for Wales.

Baroness Kramer: My Lords-

Lord Cormack: My Lords-

Baroness Kramer: My Lords, I understand the budgetary framework, but does my noble friend agree that staying within that envelope but moving faster towards the target of raising the starting rate of tax to £10,000 would provide a boost to consumer confidence and demand that would stimulate business and growth more rapidly?

Baroness Wilcox: My noble friend is very brave. As she will remember, the Government's plan for growth is to create the most competitive tax system in the G20, and that is the path we are on.

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the north-east is a wonderful place to live, to work and to establish businesses, but under this Government unemployment has risen there more than anywhere else in the kingdom. People in the north-east are beginning to feel that the Government simply do not care about the region. What can she say this afternoon that can help us to begin to rebuild and give young people, in particular, a feeling that there is a future for them in the north-east?

Baroness Wilcox: I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that we are doing absolutely nothing in the north-east, because we are very aware of areas such as the north-east which have had industries that have closed and all sorts of difficulties to contend with. That is why the national insurance holiday until 5 September 2013 has been announced; it is why the European regional development funds were allocated to the north of England in the current EU finance round of nearly £1 billion; it is why the £1.4 billion of the regional growth fund to support projects and programmes that promote jobs and growth in particular supports areas currently dependent on the public sector, as the north-east has been, to make the transition to private sector-led growth. We are very aware of the difficulties there; we would be a foolish Government if we did not look to see which are the most difficult areas of the country and which need our best help. We are doing our best, and I hope that she will encourage us.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that in the 18th century, Edinburgh was referred to in cultural and intellectual terms as the Athens of the north. Would it not be a tragedy if in the 21st century, Edinburgh came to be referred to as the Athens of the north for economic reasons?

Baroness Wilcox: It will not be. They are a wily lot up there in Scotland, and it is for the people of Scotland to decide their constitutional future. The Government strongly believe that Scotland is better off as part of the United Kingdom, and I do not think that I can do better than quote an English visitor in 1750, Mr Amyat, the King's chemist, who famously remarked:
	"Here I stand at what is called the Cross of Edinburgh, and can, in a few minutes, take 50 men of genius and learning by the hand".
	We do not want to lose them.

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, with record levels of unemployment, is the noble Baroness concerned about the performance of the Government's flagship growth policy? The regional growth fund was hugely oversubscribed because of the Government's cuts, meaning that it has created more losers than winners. Will she explain why, of the winners, more than a year after the bidding process began and more than 10 months after the successful bidders in the fund's first round were announced, more than 40 per cent of successful bidders are still waiting to receive their money?

Baroness Wilcox: The regional growth fund has been enormously successful. We are very proud of it, as we are about the number of people who have applied for it. I am sure that it is quite obvious to the noble Lord, as it is to me, that the reason for hesitation from some people is that there has to be due diligence on every bid put forward to make sure that we are not taking taxpayers' money and investing it unwisely.

Media: Ownership
	 — 
	Question

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to the implications of Saturday's arrests of senior News International journalists for the future of BSkyB's broadcasting licence.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, this is a matter for the police, who should follow their investigations wherever the evidence takes them. Decisions on whether News Corporation remains a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence is a matter for Ofcom, which is taking its responsibility in this area seriously and is in touch with the relevant authorities. The Government have no role in its decisions.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, given that it was not just journalists but senior management at the Sun who were arrested at the weekend, and that according to press reports it is now possible that the directors of News Corp could be charged with offences under America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, is it not time to review the way in which the fit and proper test applies to those holding broadcasting licences so that the Government have the power to intervene as and when events require it, rather than having to wait for a trigger event, such as a takeover or a referral to the Competition Commission, which is the case at present?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The noble Baroness raises serious issues but she will be aware that the Government have no power to intervene over whether anyone holding a broadcasting licence is a fit and proper person, and there are currently no plans to change this. By coincidence, the Communications Select Committee will publish a report tomorrow on the future of investigative journalism, which will cover these matters in greater detail. Of course, the communications Green Paper is also coming up shortly, when there will be further opportunities to discuss these issues.

Lord Stoneham of Droxford: Given the self-interested approach of leading politicians in both main political parties to media ownership over the past 30 years, does the Minister agree that, unless this matter is properly independently regulated, the Government have as much chance of getting this right as the Football League has of approving a fit and proper person to own Portsmouth Football Club?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: My noble friend asks a challenging question. He will be aware that it has been difficult for Governments to investigate the media in great detail, but we now have the Leveson inquiry, which, it is hoped, will bring many matters to light. As I said, we will also have the opportunity to discuss this through our own communications paper.

Lord Winston: My Lords, given my noble friend's justified concern about this issue, does the Minister not agree that BSkyB has performed a very important function in British broadcasting, increasingly in cultural as well as in sporting and news events, and that it does an important job in challenging the hegemony of the BBC?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: The noble Lord is absolutely right. It is perhaps all too easy to overlook the fact that BSkyB performs a great service in the country and, indeed, that News Corporation has played a great part in media plurality over the years. It is to the credit of News Corporation that it is co-operating fully in the current investigation.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, is there not an overriding public interest in the continued existence of a free press and does this not apply to all forms of media?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I absolutely agree with my noble friend. It is essential that we have a free press in this country. It is very much valued. We sometimes have to take the rough with the smooth in some of the ideas and media stories that a free press comes up with.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I thank the Government for finally accepting that Section 58(4) of the Enterprise Act can now be amended. Bearing in mind that fact, does the noble Baroness not believe that it will be important to add the fit and proper person test now, as opposed to waiting until the Leveson inquiry has reported?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I know that the department is grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for the discussions that it has had with her on these points. The point she makes about the fit and proper person test is that it would require primary legislation and we are not currently minded to make changes to the regime. However, as with the other matters, it will be part of the communications review, and of course we will have to take into account the recommendations of the Leveson report.

Lord Martin of Springburn: My Lords, in recent days, leading members of the media have said that in certain circumstances it is all right to give money to police officers for information. Can the Minister confirm that it is a criminal act for anyone, including journalists, to give money to any serving police officer for private information?

Baroness Garden of Frognal: Indeed, my Lords, I can confirm that.

Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for trailing tomorrow's Communications Committee report, which covers in some depth a lot of the issues that are being discussed now. Although I recognise that, on the face of it, some activities of some journalists who have been engaged by News Corporation appear to be absolutely abominable and unacceptable, it is equally important, in the interests of investigative journalism and the way in which our country is run, that people are perceived to be innocent until they are proved guilty.

Baroness Garden of Frognal: I agree with my noble friend. We must also bear in mind the power of investigative journalism, which has turned up some stories that have been of great benefit to the country as well as a cause of pain to other people.

Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (Council Tax Increases) (England) Regulations 2012
	 — 
	Motion to Approve

Moved By Baroness Hanham
	That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 January be approved.
	Relevant documents: 37th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 February.
	Motion agreed.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Bill

Bill Main Page

Order of Commitment Discharged

Moved By Lord Laming
	That the order of commitment be discharged.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless a noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Motion agreed.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Protection of Freedoms Bill
	20th Report from the Constitution Committee
	18th Report from the Joint Committeee on Human Rights

Report (3rd Day)

Relevant documents: 20th Report from the Constitution Committee, 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Clause 64 : Restriction of scope of regulated activities: children
	Amendment 50A
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	50A: Clause 64, page 51, line 24, at end insert-
	"(2C) The reference in subsection (2B)(b) to day to day supervision is a reference to such day to day supervision as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned."

Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendments 54A, 54M and 54N; Amendment 50B, in the names of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss; Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Addington; and Amendment 52, in the names of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Randerson.
	Without wishing to reopen the debate that we had last week, I reiterate that we remain of the position that, where individuals can be properly supervised, they should in certain circumstances fall outside the regulated activity and the necessity for barred list checks. We believe that proper supervision should help to reduce both the risk of improper conduct and of inappropriate relationships developing.
	As we have previously debated, the Government have said that enhanced criminal record certificates will continue to be available for activities that will be removed from regulated activity and which involve close contact with children when the scope of regulated activity is scaled back by Clause 64. In a school, that will include, for example, supervised volunteers who instruct children. Enhanced criminal record certificates include information on previous criminal convictions and cautions, both spent and unspent, and any relevant police information held locally. Therefore, organisations can, if they judge it necessary, see the information about behaviour that they need to see in order to reach a judgment on whether to use the person in a particular activity.
	Even under the original barring scheme, the law did not require checks for various categories of people who were in contact with children. Organisations and communities must share responsibility for keeping children safe. The scheme was never intended to regulate contact with children outside a specified place, such as contact in a faith or leisure setting. Our intention is to provide additional flexibility for employing organisations and to help ensure that individuals are not dissuaded from volunteering. Such organisations as the Scouts and Girl Guiding UK have made the point that they prefer to supervise individuals when they first join, before barred list checks become necessary. However, as I said, there is no compulsion in the Bill for an organisation to provide supervision. Where it is unable to do so, activities will remain regulated and barred list checks must be made.
	In Committee, a number of noble Lords expressed unease that the term "day to day supervision" lacked clarity and that, as a result, employers and voluntary organisations would have difficulty in deciding whether an employee or volunteer fell within the scope of regulated activity. We listened very carefully to these arguments and now aim, through the government amendments, to provide greater clarity on the level of supervision required for someone to fall outside the scope of regulated activity. Under the amendments, the level of day-to-day supervision must be such as to be,
	"reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned".
	By adding this qualitative description of the level of supervision required, the amendments, coupled with the statutory guidance we are already committed to providing, address the points raised in Committee.
	At that stage, and again today, we heard about the particular circumstances of various types of sport, where adults often coach children in extensive playing fields or other wide-open spaces. The requirement that supervision must be,
	"reasonable in all the circumstances",
	will give sports organisations precisely the discretion they need in order to decide whether, in the circumstances of their sport, a volunteer-or indeed paid-coach or other helper should be supervised. If organisations want to encourage volunteers without requiring them to undergo a barred list check, they may do so, as long as they work out what would be a reasonable level of supervision in their case, and provide supervision accordingly. If on the other hand the organisation decides that the oversight it provides does not amount to supervision that is reasonable for child protection, it may conclude that the coach is not supervised and so is in regulated activity.
	I have already mentioned that we will supplement the provisions of the Bill with statutory guidance, which will further contextualise what we mean by day-to-day supervision. Clause 77 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to provide such guidance, and we are committed to consulting on the form of the guidance. I had hoped to circulate a first draft of the guidance before today, but alas that proved impossible. I hope that the House will understand that it is important to get the guidance right rather than to rush it. We will certainly seek to get a draft out for consultation as quickly as possible.
	The Criminal Records Bureau is also committed to producing clear and specific guidance on the new updating service for registered bodies, employers and applicants. While I cannot specify the precise timescale, we have started engaging with stakeholders to understand their requirements, and will continue to work with them to ensure that the guidance produced meets their needs and is communicated effectively. This will be complemented by guidance being developed by the Criminal Records Bureau, which will include advice on just how the current service may be used and an online tool which will enable employers and applicants to understand when a criminal records check is appropriate. In addition, the Government will also be issuing guidance on the broader safeguarding issues.
	Given what is already in Clause 77 and the commitments I have made, I shall say a brief word or two about the amendments tabled by other noble Lords that we will also be discussing. I hope that my noble friend Lord Addington will not mind if I anticipate his remarks about Amendment 51 and put it to him that, in relation to that amendment, the ground is already sufficiently well covered. The provision in Clause 77 goes further than Amendment 51 as that clause also places a duty on regulated activity providers and personnel suppliers to have regard to the guidance. In relation to the other guidance to which I have referred, issued by the Criminal Records Bureau, there is not the same duty to have regard to the guidance, but we would encourage all organisations working with children to do so, and we believe it would be in their interests, and those of the children in their care, to do so.
	I move on to Amendment 50B, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She is seeking to probe what we mean by "in all the circumstances". The intention of this wording is that local managers judge the appropriate level of supervision based on the risk of harm to children in a particular setting. Where they judge that risk is lower, they may supervise less. Where it is higher, they would supervise more. That is what is meant by "in all the circumstances". Managers on the ground should always decide in the first instance what to do in any particular case. This phrasing supports them by offering a yardstick for making that decision. It also prevents them using scarcity of resource as a reason for supervising less than would be deemed reasonable in their case, so it is,
	"reasonable in all the circumstances",
	which is quite a change from "reasonable" on its own.
	I would also like to say a word or two about Amendment 52, tabled by my noble friend Lady Walmsley. It seeks to bring within the scope of regulated activity all those who work in a further education college where any children are studying. It is important to bear in mind that all teaching and non-teaching staff in establishments, including FE colleges, that wholly or mainly provide full-time education to children remain within regulated activity and therefore will undergo a barred list check at entry. In addition, unsupervised teaching, training, instruction, care and supervision of children in FE colleges remain regulated activity, even where the college is mainly for adults. This amendment would go further and bring into regulated activity all work by any staff in FE colleges which provide education to even a very small number of children. As I said in Committee, we believe it is disproportionate and unnecessary to require such individuals to be subject to the same level of checks as those working in an institution wholly or mainly for the full-time education of children, such as a primary school or a nursery.
	The Government do not consider it proportionate for the state to require or allow barred list checks generally on activities that entail only incidental contact with children. My noble friend will, no doubt, have more to say about this in due course, but I appreciate the legitimate concerns of the FE sector that it needs suitable safeguarding arrangements. The precise boundaries of eligibility for enhanced criminal record certificates in FE colleges have yet to be finalised, and we will certainly consider ensuring that staff with access to children in FE colleges will be eligible for enhanced certificates. This can be achieved through regulations in due course. It should ensure that employers in FE colleges can continue to receive relevant information on which to make an employment decision, as enhanced certificates detail all criminal convictions and cautions and any relevant local police information.
	My noble friend's amendment possibly goes a little too far. I hope that my noble friend will agree that the steps we have taken and are considering are a more appropriate means for our common goal, which is to have proper safeguards for children who study at FE colleges.
	Obviously it will be for my noble friends to consider their amendments when they come to move them. At this stage, I would like to move the government amendment and listen to the comments from my noble friends and others about both the government amendments and their own amendments. I beg to move.
	Amendment 50B (to Amendment 50A)
	 Moved by Baroness Hamwee
	50B: Clause 64, line 3, leave out "in all the circumstances"

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as the Minister has explained, my Amendment 50B seeks to understand precisely what is meant by his Amendment 50A. I welcome the direction in which the Government are moving, and I hope that I will welcome the guidance as well. As he said, this issue caused some unease among noble Lords in previous debates, and there were some very powerful and very knowledgeable contributions on the last occasion.
	My amendment would take out the words "in all the circumstances". There has been reference not only to unease but many times to balance, which in a number of places in this Bill has been the approach taken. However, concern has been expressed that balance in this context may be more dangerous than we would like to think. I am not clear what is meant by "the circumstances" here. Is it a balance between what is required for the protection of children and the burden on those who are supervising?
	The Minister has said that it means more than simply "reasonable", and qualifies it-of course, "reasonable" is a qualification in itself. My concern, as he has anticipated, is that to add "in all the circumstances" would reduce the degree or quality of supervision required. It must mean something, otherwise it would simply say "reasonable". I do not think it adds; I fear it may detract. He has explained that it requires local managers on the ground to judge the risk-I think I am right in saying-in the circumstances of the particular activity. It still seems to me that "reasonable" alone would do the job. My amendment looks for confirmation that "in all the circumstances" is not a reference to the burden on those who supervise or who might supervise.
	I started by saying that I welcome the direction in which the Government are moving, and I would hate this phraseology to take us backwards from that. I beg to move.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment to the amendment. First, I apologise to the House and the Minister for not having been here at the beginning of his explanation. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the use of the words "in all the circumstances". Either it is reasonable or it is not reasonable. People will wonder whether "in all the circumstances" adds something to "reasonable" that might not be entirely clear.

Lord Addington: I shall speak to Amendment 51, which stands in my name. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint is unable to be here. I am afraid that she is going through a learning curve on this Bill and has learnt the great rule about parliamentary procedure in the Lords that it does not matter how late you stay, sometimes the proceedings just will not get to your amendment.
	I thank the Government for what they have said. They have listened to the concerns brought to me through the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which represents all the major sporting bodies. Its concern will probably be mirrored in every body that deals particularly with children and virtually any vulnerable group: that is, we do not exactly know how much authority a person will have over a child, which will change with each sport or activity over a period of time. If you are helping a dancer with flexibility or strength work, it is slightly different from assisting with strength work for a young shot putter. There will still be a very intimate level of interaction and a degree of authority.
	Giving those bodies in charge the chance to interact with the Government and to make sure that there is a two-way dialogue means that there will be a better chance of getting this right. I thank the Minister for what he has said and for all the work that he has done on this. However, will he give an assurance that this will be updated periodically? Training techniques in virtually all sports change. Philosophies of engagement with groups of youngsters have certainly changed dramatically and will probably change again. A degree of change and a continuation of flow of information would be good, and what the Government have done is good. It addresses virtually all our points.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I regret to say that my noble friend Lady Walmsley is unable to be here today and has asked me to speak on her behalf on Amendment 52. The Minister has already mentioned this amendment. I take it from when he talked about the fact that the situation in further education colleges has yet to be finalised, and that the precise application can be ensured in regulations, that there is still some room for manoeuvre.
	I should like to take up the two letters that the Minister wrote to my noble friend on 11 February and the other to my noble friend Lady Randerson on 1 February. I believe that it has been circulated to noble Lords. We are anxious that further education colleges should be treated in the same way as schools and that every full-time, and to some extent part-time, member of staff should be subject to the same vetting and barring rules. We were arguing that the staff should have a statutory CRB check. My noble friend has made the point many times as to the illogicality of the two types of institution being treated differently, but I will not dwell on that.
	In his letter to my noble friend Lady Randerson, the Minister says:
	"We do not consider it is right that, apart from special circumstances such as those applying to fostering and adoption, barred list information should be available in respect of posts which are not themselves subject to barring. This would effectively provide barring information to employers which is not relevant to the post and could lead to disproportionate and detrimental decisions".
	My noble friend Lady Walmsley and I do not agree that this information is not relevant to the post. We believe that it is relevant to the post if the employer thinks it is: in other words, if the employer thinks that the post, albeit not a regulated one under this Bill, would give the employee an opportunity to develop a relationship of trust with a young person.
	Perhaps I may set out a fairly recent example of this, which has been sent to us by the Association of Colleges, involving a caretaker,
	"Dismissed for unacceptable conduct towards students aged under 16 years. The issue was reported to the College by the parent of a student who had been told by her child about a man who was known as 'the pervy caretaker' among students at the College. The conduct included inappropriate communications with students on social networking websites; inappropriate text messages to students; meeting-up with students to 'hang out' with them, including in pubs where the students were drinking under age. After an investigation the caretaker was dismissed and the matter referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority"
	This illustrates a point that came up in our discussion last Monday on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. Someone who does not necessarily have teaching contact with children may nevertheless have daily or near daily contact with them. The children see the person around the place and develop trust in them. That person can then pursue them in other circumstances.
	Towards the end of the same letter to my noble friend Lady Randerson, the Minister tries to reassure us by telling us that in those circumstances, when appointing someone to a role that used to be in a "controlled" category but is not now, the employer will be able to get hold of the enhanced CRB check. The Minister emphasises that this check will contain not only criminal records information but local police information. That is all very well, but only if previous employers with sufficient cause for concern to refer the matter to the Independent Safeguarding Authority had at the same time informed the police. However, the Minister will know that that does not always happen.
	More seriously, I point out to my noble friend that, in providing this information to the employer and leaving the decision to him, the responsibility for a decision that is currently made by expert members of the Independent Safeguarding Authority is transferred. People are trained and appointed to the authority especially for their ability to analyse the risk inherent in the behaviour that is reported to them. There is a considerable risk in leaving it to the employer. Not all employers understand these things as well as the expert members of the Independent Safeguarding Authority. Indeed, what was then the Independent Barring Board was set up in the first place to take these decisions away from Ministers who, until about 10 years ago, had to take the decisions themselves but who did not have the expert knowledge to do so. The decision-making was given to people who do have that knowledge.
	Now the Government want to hand these decisions over to people who are amateurs, and not satisfied with the transference of responsibility they also plan to transfer to the employer the decision as to whether the supervision of such an employee, to quote the Minister's own amendment,
	"is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned".
	If that is so, it could be suggested that most college employers will decide that it is simply not possible to provide that level of supervision since the majority of abuse does not take place on the premises but elsewhere-what is called "secondary access". The employer cannot be vigilant in the youth club, the sports shop or the leisure centre because he is not there. If an FE college employer decides that in the light of the opportunity for secondary access he is not able to provide supervision that,
	"is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned",
	can he designate the role as a regulated one and therefore ask for and be given the barring information as well as the enhanced CRB check? If that is the case, the Association of Colleges, which is so concerned that it has asked us to pursue Amendment 53 through to Report, may be satisfied, even though it is being asked to be as expert as the IBB.
	Will the Minister clarify his initial statement about there still being some flexibility in regulations, and answer the specific question as to whether there is some ability on the part of the employer to ask for the enhanced CRB check and the IBB information?

Lord Bichard: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House by repeating any of the points that I made in speaking to Amendments 53 and 54 the other evening, but I do not think that we have yet reached an entirely satisfactory outcome on these issues. I welcome the Minister's commitment to further discussions, which he has repeated to me since that debate. I hope that we will able to have those discussions before Third Reading, because I think there is continuing unease about this issue within the House and among children's charities and the wider public.
	Although I know that we trying to reduce bureaucracy, I am beginning to worry that we are in danger of making an extremely complex system even more confusing by the way in which we are distinguishing between places, whether they are specified or not, and between organisations-we have heard the distinctions drawn between colleges and schools and between paid and unpaid workers. I hope that we can perhaps move to a much simpler statement. The amendment may not be the right form of words, which is why I welcome the further discussions, but I would like to think that we could say quite simply that all organisations employing adults, whether paid or unpaid, to work regularly with children, in whatever settings, should be able to carry out enhanced CRB checks, and that should be recommended by the department as good practice. Regulated activities and the barring system are an additional protection, but we should have a basic position which ensures that anyone working with children regularly can be checked by the organisation, because that is the only way in which an organisation can be sure that it is doing all it can to reduce the risk to that child. My concern will always be how we reduce the risk to the child, rather than how we drive down the bureaucracy.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I want to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, but I would want to go a little further than she did. She was applying her remarks very much in the context of colleges and so on, but the principle applies to a younger age group as well. I hope that when the Minister responds to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and, I hope, indicates that further discussions can take place before Third Reading, he will consider the points that have been very clearly made.
	The Minister has talked about the importance of proper supervision in reducing the risk of improper conduct. He said that it would also reduce the risk of improper relationships developing. The real difficulty in this category is that there will be individuals who have not been checked who will be in close, regular contact with children. They will be supervised, so nothing untoward can happen in that context, but something may happen elsewhere. A relationship may build up. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about relationships that were pursued in pubs, with underage drinking, but with younger children the context could be very different. It could be a kick-about in the park or whatever. That is where the difficulty arises.
	When we debated these issues the other night, the Minister talked about the proper role of parents. I do not think anyone here doubts that parents have an incredibly important role in this, but parents' main message to children is about stranger danger, and these individuals are not strangers. They are individuals whom the child or young person meets in the context of what is regarded as a secure and safe setting. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will address that issue and how we might take it forward. Can he give us some indication as to whether his concept of supervision includes some means of ensuring that contact is not developed outside, whether by way of e-mails, Facebook or anything else?
	Also, there has been a lot of discussion that has muddied the waters about enhanced CRB checks and checks using the information available to the Independent Barring Board. The reality is that 20 per cent of those who are on the lists maintained by the Independent Barring Board have not been through the criminal justice system, so they will not show up through those criminal record checks. The point that has been made about providing a facility whereby colleges, schools or youth clubs can ask if they think it is appropriate for those checks to be made does not necessarily go far enough unless you are able to take on board the issue of the information that is held by the barring authorities.
	Nobody is pretending that these are simple issues, but I hope that when the Minister responds he will recognise that they are issues that need further work and that we can try to get this right before Third Reading.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, the amendment that stands in my name refers to further education colleges. I am afraid that it is an inadequate amendment because it refers to FE colleges and to children. The principles that I will talk about refer equally to sixth-form colleges, which are a separate category, and to vulnerable adults. The principles are exactly the same there.
	I thank the Minister for the careful consideration that he has given to the issues that my noble friend Lady Walmsley and I have raised with him. I also thank him for his very helpful letter. I am grateful that he has agreed to a further meeting before Third Reading. My noble friend has already quoted extensively from that letter.
	When I met the Minister, I used two examples of people who would not be in a position of supervision, but who would be in a position to build up a relationship of trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just mentioned. One would be a learning assistant. Such assistants are in constant contact, but they are virtually never in a position of supervision. It was pointed out to me by the Minister that if they were dealing in any way with care for young people and vulnerable students, they would be subject to vetting and barring. But not all are in that position by any means.
	My second example was used extensively last week in debate here in the Chamber-that of IT assistants. Noble Lords need to understand how teaching and learning take place in a modern further education college. I spent 23 years teaching in further education. It is not a simple, classical situation. A great deal of learning takes place, for example, in a learning resources centre, where there might be between 50 and 100 computers. There would be a supervisor-who would be the librarian or the learning resources administrator-but there would be an IT technician there to help. I can assure noble Lords that young people aged 14 to 16 develop a close relationship with IT technicians and regard them very highly indeed. It is that kind of position that could be exploited. Young people do not understand who is in charge-they relate to the people who are friendly with them, have a lot of contact with them and help them. They could not care less who is the boss in the set-up. We have to be very clear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, mentioned just now, that makes the situation very complex when we are dealing with this kind of problem.
	The Government offer reassurance that enhanced criminal records checks and certificates will be available for posts previously covered by the definition of regulated activity but that now fall outside it. I am very pleased that the Government have agreed to consider including staff in further education colleges dealing with children as requiring enhanced certificates. If they decide to do that, it will be in regulations in due course. However, that does not by any means solve the whole problem. It does not deal with the basic point, which is that schools, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges should be treated in the same way. There is no logical reason why they should not be, because there is such an overlap between them.
	If schools, for example, have a more stringent regime than colleges, the clever and devious people who target young people will look to the colleges to get the kind of employment that will enable them to establish a position of trust with vulnerable young people, rather than working in schools. This puts colleges at a disadvantage.
	In his letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the Minister points out that employers will still be able to request enhanced CRB checks, and that in most cases this will contain the information that led to any barring decision. However, we know-as the noble Lord has just reminded us-that there is no police record in one in five cases of barring. Therefore, the enhanced CRB check will not throw up that situation. In the example my noble friend gave just now, the "pervy caretaker" does not have a police record, so it would not come up on an enhanced CRB check.
	The Minister said in his introduction that it would be disproportionate to put this burden on further education colleges because they deal primarily with adults. However, they deal of course with many vulnerable adults, who should be considered in the same category as young children. They also deal with many thousands of children. Further education colleges are extremely large-although you might say that only 0.5 per cent of their students are 14 to 16 year-olds, that is a very large number of young people. I have done a little asking around in the last few weeks, and found that most colleges have at least 100 young people in that category coming into their premises on a weekly basis. That number is larger than for many primary schools, yet we are saying, "Of course, primary schools have to have this protection", while young people in further education colleges will not have the same level of protection.
	I urge the Government to take these issues on board and to think again. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, proposed half a solution. There is further work to be done, but it is a very good start to how we look at this for the future, and I look forward to the opportunity of meeting with the Minister prior to Third Reading.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his amendments. The Government have taken some steps towards what is needed, but as has been clear from the well informed discussion that we have had this afternoon we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, not there yet. All the arguments have been made powerfully. The own experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is invaluable and I was going to say that I very much supported Amendment 52 but, as she herself said, it would need to include vulnerable adults and not just children. I would simply ask the Minister two things. First, in relation to his own amendments, the Minister mentioned guidance. I realise that the guidance is not ready yet, but when it is forthcoming it will be extremely important for the safety of our young people and children. How will this House be consulted, and will we have an opportunity to debate and discuss that guidance?
	More importantly, I was very taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, with its very simple solution to a complex problem. Will the Minister consider that proposal? Will he also confirm that he will have further discussions with the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others and that he will come back to this House at Third Reading with what I hope will be a solution to a problem that should not be intractable but which, as the noble Lord himself said, has to balance bureaucratic impediments and risks to the safety of children? Where the safety of children and vulnerable adults is concerned I urge him always to err on the side of safety and caution, rather than on diminishing bureaucracy. I realise that bureaucracy can be and is a problem. However, where the safety of children and vulnerable adults is concerned we have a duty to err on the side of caution.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her remarks, particularly for her endorsement of our search to strike a balance. We are trying to do that. I echo her comment that we are not there yet and I would endorse that. We had quite an extensive debate on this late on 6th February, and no doubt we will have further discussions on this matter at Third Reading. I want to make it clear that I look forward to those discussions. Also, in response to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, I would certainly welcome further discussions with him and others between now and then. It is important that we get these things right in due course and make sure that the right Bill becomes an Act on the statute book, and that we get the right guidance. I give an assurance that there will be further discussions and that my door, as Ministers always say, will be open as much as possible.
	I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is very important that we get the guidance right. However, I cannot give any assurance as to when we will get it, and I am not sure whether I will be able to get it before Third Reading. As for how this House will be able to debate that, I imagine that the noble Baroness and the usual channels will find a means of ensuring that it is debated in the appropriate manner in due course.
	I shall deal with some of the points relating to the three amendments, having given those introductory remarks following my moving of my own amendments. First, Amendment 50B was moved by two lawyers, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who questioned the use of "in all the circumstances". Getting such eminent legal advice thrown back at me causes me some alarm. I am asked just what the phrase means. I think back to the days when I did my Bar exams-the stuff about "reasonable", "the man on the Clapham omnibus" and all that. It seems quite obvious that "in all the circumstances" qualifies "reasonable" in a manner that should be suitable for the people who have to operate this Act, as it will become.
	If I may put this in a sporting context, to make it easier for my noble friend Lord Addington, obviously the circumstances will vary whether you are supervising rugby training over a whole area of different rugby pitches according to the different forms of training that are necessary or whether it is boxing. The circumstances will change according to what is being supervised.

The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, the problem with the phrase is entirely in the word "all". The Minister mentioned the man on the Clapham omnibus. "In all the circumstances" sounds very different from "in the particular circumstances". We are striving to tailor the application of the principles to particular cases. "In all the circumstances" sounds as if it weakens the case.

Lord Henley: My Lords, with all due respect, as one always says to right reverend Prelates, I think that "in all the circumstances" sounds better than "in the particular circumstances". However, I am prepared to take advice from parliamentary draftsmen and other lawyers on whether they think the two expressions have a different meaning or whether "reasonable" on its own would be different. I have a sneaking feeling that we have set a fox running here that we are getting overly worked up about. I see the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, laughing at this; if she were interpreting this in a court of law, she would find that "in all the circumstances" was relatively easy to understand and was quite a good qualifier of "reasonable". I certainly do not think that it detracts from the word "reasonable". I hope that the House will accept the amendment, but if others want to come back to it at Third Reading, I am more than happy to continue that debate. I hope that that deals with the probing amendment, as I understand it was, from my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
	I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Addington. Again, I was grateful that he welcomed what we were doing. I think that he wanted some assurance that the guidance will be kept updated in due course. I can give that assurance; there is no point in having guidance that stays cast in stone for many years, like the 10 commandments-actually, they serve us quite well. Colleagues in the Department for Education and other departments will want to ensure that it is kept updated in the appropriate manner at the appropriate time.
	I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, to which my noble friend Lady Sharp spoke, relating to FE colleges and the question of why they could not be treated the same as schools. I do not want to repeat everything I said in my opening remarks, but I can give some sort of assurance that we will look again-this is important in terms of further discussions-at the idea of enabling FE colleges to obtain an enhanced CRB certificate. We would not necessarily put everyone who works in an FE college into regulated activity, which we consider disproportionate, but we could consider giving them the power to look at where it might be possible to do that. Again, that could be part of the discussions that I hope to have over the coming weeks. I think it is still a matter of weeks before we get to the Third Reading of the Bill.
	With the assurance that discussions will continue and we want to get this right, I hope the House will be prepared to accept the amendments that I have tabled here. I hope that we can have further and profitable discussions. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the short answer is thanks. Discussions will continue. I am grateful for the compliment that the noble Lord paid me by putting me in the same category as the noble and learned Baroness. I follow on her coat tails but a very long way behind. I still think that there is more to be discussed here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 50B withdrawn.
	Amendment 50A agreed.
	Amendments 51 to 54 not moved.
	Amendment 54A
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	54A: Clause 64, page 52, line 39, at end insert-
	"(3BA) The references in subsections (3A) and (3B)(b) to day to day supervision are references to such day to day supervision as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned."
	Amendment 54A agreed.
	Clause 67 : Alteration of test for barring decisions
	Amendment 54B
	 Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	54B: Clause 67, page 55, line 33, leave out from "person," to end of line 35

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, in moving Amendment 54B, I will speak also to Amendments 54C to 54H, 54P to 54V, 60 and 61. This group of government amendments to Clauses 67 and 77, and the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions in Schedule 7, deals with barring decisions and barred list information.
	Clause 67 provides that a person will be barred by the Independent Safeguarding Authority from working with children or vulnerable adults only if that person has been, is or might in the future be engaged in regulated activity. As my noble friend has already made clear this afternoon and at all stages of the Bill so far, in seeking to scale back the disclosure and barring scheme, the Government believe that it is disproportionate to bar a person if they have never worked in regulated activity and have no prospect ever of doing so. However, having listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and by organisations such as the NSPCC, we have concluded that where someone has been convicted of a crime on the list of the most serious offences-that is, an offence that leads to an automatic bar without the right to make representations-the Independent Safeguarding Authority should bar that person whether or not they work or intend to work in regulated activity. An automatic bar without representation would apply to convictions for the most serious sexual and violent offences, such as, in the case of the children's barred list, the rape of a child. In these cases, there are no conceivable mitigating circumstances-that is why representations are not permitted-and there can be no question that the person is a risk to vulnerable groups.
	Amendments 54B to 54E give effect to these changes in England and Wales, and Amendments 54P to 54S make similar changes to Schedule 7 in respect of Northern Ireland. Amendment 60 is consequential on Amendments 54B to 54E, and Amendment 61 is consequential on Amendments 54P to 54S. The other amendments in this group concern the provision of information by the Independent Safeguarding Authority to the police. Clause 77(4) states that the Independent Safeguarding Authority must, for one of a number of specified purposes,
	"provide to any chief officer of police who has requested it information as to whether a person is barred".
	The current drafting requires the Independent Safeguarding Authority to provide to the police information only about whether a particular person is barred rather than the whole barred list.
	The police have indicated that they need this information in real time-for example, if they were to stop someone driving a school minibus and needed to know whether they were barred. In practice, making requests to the Independent Safeguarding Authority on a case-by-case basis would not always provide the police with the information in the necessary timescale. Amendments 54F and 54G therefore provide that the ISA must provide to the police the whole barred list. The police will then be able to put appropriate flags on the PNC, and will have immediate access to barring information when they need it. Amendment 54H ensures that this requirement to supply the whole barred list does not extend to information provided to the prison and probation services. Amendments 54T, 54U and 54V provide for the same arrangement in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear explanation. I wholeheartedly welcome this amendment, for which we have been calling since the Bill was first introduced. As my honourable friend the Member for Hull North said in another place:
	"There is a very good reason why someone who commits a serious offence is barred from working with children-because they pose a serious risk to children. That should mean that they are automatically barred from working with them".-[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 228.]
	I have to say that I was astonished by the Government's original proposal that a man convicted of raping a child would not automatically be barred from working with children. I am grateful to the Government for listening and introducing this amendment which clearly puts right what was, I believe, a miscalculation of risk.
	I have one or two questions for the noble Baroness but I hope not to detain her for long. She will know that the amendment which I tabled in Committee not only reinstated automatic barring but provided for an appeals process for individuals. Do the Government plan to review the existing appeals processes-based on written submission by the individual-to allow for appeals hearings in person, as were provided for by my amendment? How do the Government propose to ensure that there will be a consistent and proportionate approach to enhanced disclosures across all police authorities?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her support for this amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, we have listened carefully and are pleased to table this amendment. The only thing that is perhaps worth making clear is that the absence of an automatic bar does not give anybody an automatic right. We have ensured that anybody who has been convicted of the most serious crime and has no opportunity to make representation is automatically barred. However, this does not mean that those who are not automatically barred have an automatic right-the opposite is not true for them. A proper process will follow.
	As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness in Committee and plans to review the existing appeals process, we are ensuring that representations can be considered in advance. The change we are making to the barring and vetting process will mean that somebody who is about to be employed in a regulated activity, and is therefore subjected to checks of the kind we are discussing, will receive the certificate and have the opportunity to challenge any information that is on it before it is made available to the employing body. Therefore, the opportunity for that challenge is at the start of the process rather than after a certificate has been issued to a prospective employer or organisation for which somebody might volunteer. Representations can include oral representations-they do not necessarily have to make their appeals or representations in writing-but at the moment we are not planning any further changes to the appeals process.
	On the noble Baroness's final point about the police process, if I understood correctly, the point that she was making was that this system of ensuring availability of the barred list should be consistent across all police authorities. I can confirm that that is the case.
	Amendment 54B agreed.
	Amendments 54C to 54E
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	54C: Clause 67, page 55, line 38, leave out from "person," to end of line 41
	54D: Clause 67, page 57, line 23, leave out from "person," to end of line 25
	54E: Clause 67, page 57, line 28, leave out from "person," to end of line 31
	Amendments 54C to 54E agreed.
	Clause 77 : Minor amendments
	Amendments 54F to 54H
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	54F: Clause 77, page 70, line 3, after "it" insert "a barred list or"
	54G: Clause 77, page 70, line 4, after "a" insert "particular"
	54H: Clause 77, page 70, line 10, after "a" insert "particular"
	Amendments 54F to 54H agreed.
	Amendments 54J to 54L had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Schedule 7 : Safeguarding of vulnerable groups: Northern Ireland
	Amendments 54M to 54V
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	54M: Schedule 7, page 148, line 10, at end insert-
	"(2C) The reference in sub-paragraph (2B)(b) to day to day supervision is a reference to such day to day supervision as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned."
	54N: Schedule 7, page 149, line 2, at end insert-
	"(3BA) The references in sub-paragraphs (3A) and (3B)(b) to day to day supervision are references to such day to day supervision as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned."
	54P: Schedule 7, page 151, line 31, leave out from "person," to end of line 33
	54Q: Schedule 7, page 151, line 36, leave out from "person," to end of line 39
	54R: Schedule 7, page 153, line 19, leave out from "person," to end of line 21
	54S: Schedule 7, page 153, line 24, leave out from "person," to end of line 27
	54T: Schedule 7, page 166, line 5, after "it" insert "a barred list or"
	54U: Schedule 7, page 166, line 5, after "a" insert "particular"
	54V: Schedule 7, page 166, line 12, after "a" insert "particular"
	Amendments 54M to 54V agreed.
	Clause 79 : Restriction on information provided to certain persons
	Amendment 54W
	 Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	54W: Clause 79, page 72, line 16, at end insert-
	"120AD Registered persons: copies of certificates in certain circumstances
	(1) Subsection (2) applies if-
	(a) the Secretary of State gives up-date information in relation to a criminal record certificate or enhanced criminal record certificate,
	(b) the up-date information is advice to apply for a new certificate or (as the case may be) request another person to apply for such a certificate, and
	(c) the person whose certificate it is in respect of which the up-date information is given applies for a new criminal record certificate or (as the case may be) enhanced criminal record certificate.
	(2) The Secretary of State must, in response to a request made within the prescribed period by the person who is acting as the registered person in relation to the application, send to that person a copy of any certificate issued in response to the application if the registered person-
	(a) has counter-signed the application or transmitted it to the Secretary of State under section 113A(2A) or 113B(2A),
	(b) has informed the Secretary of State that the applicant for the new certificate has not, within such period as may be prescribed, sent a copy of it to a person of such description as may be prescribed, and
	(c) no prescribed circumstances apply.
	(3) The power under subsection (2)(b) to prescribe a description of person may be exercised to describe the registered person or any other person.
	(4) In this section "up-date information" has the same meaning as in section 116A."

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 55 in the names of my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and to government Amendments 58, 59, 62 to 69 and 72.
	First of all, I should say how grateful I am to my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Heyhoe Flint, who my noble friend Lord Addington has indicated is unable to be with us today, and to other noble Lords-notably the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson-for the time that they have taken to talk to my noble friend Lord Henley and me about their concerns about the issue of certificates. I hope that, given the amendment that I am able to move today, noble Lords will feel that it is no longer necessary for them to move the amendment in their names.
	Although the intended effect of Amendments 54W and 55 is broadly similar-namely, that a copy of the criminal record certificate should be sent to the registered body as well as the applicant after a specified period has elapsed-their actual impact is significantly different, as I have said. We have listened to the concerns expressed about the single certificate provisions, and we are keen to ensure that there are no safeguarding gaps in respect of those individuals already employed. Amendment 54W therefore provides a facility for the Secretary of State to send to a registered body a copy of a criminal record certificate in specific and limited circumstances.
	This facility will apply where a registered body uses the new updating service introduced by Clause 83 and is informed that a new certificate should be applied for-in other words, that there has been new information since the most recent certificate. If the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent to it a copy of their certificate within a prescribed period-we envisage a period of some 21 days -and requests a copy of the new certificate, the Secretary of State must comply with that request.
	However, a copy of the certificate will not be sent if prescribed circumstances apply, principally when the individual has challenged the information on the new certificate, which is what the noble Baroness and I were just discussing with regard to the last group of amendments. Any such requests made by a registered body will need to be made in a timely manner-there is provision to prescribe a time limit-to ensure the smooth operation of these arrangements.
	Our proposed change will be particularly relevant to large organisations which consider certificates centrally, and which will be able to advise their local branches of any issues arising. This applies in particular to the examples that my noble friend Lord Addington will no doubt draw on in his contribution to today's debate.
	We recognise that there may be occasional instances in which an applicant delays providing a copy of the certificate to their employer. The amendment provides a way for registered bodies to see a copy of the new certificate in those circumstances, while still ensuring that, when an applicant has challenged the contents of the certificate, the employer will not see that information until the challenge has been resolved.
	We think our approach is more proportionate than that in Amendment 55, as it focuses the registered body's ability to request a copy of the new certificate when the applicant is already working for them or where the applicant is seeking to cite an existing certificate as part of the evidence that they are suitable to fill a specific role. We have already made provision in Clause 79 for registered bodies to establish when a certificate has been issued to an applicant and whether the certificate is clear. We discussed and amended that in Committee, again thanks to contributions from noble Lords. The amendment means that registered bodies will be able to make appropriate checks for those already working with them. The other amendments in the group are either consequential on Amendment 54W or are otherwise of a minor and technical nature.
	We have already discussed the statutory guidance today in a different context. Although statutory guidance on the disclosure and barring arrangements will be limited to the issue of supervision, as we discussed, we will be publishing broader guidance on the new arrangements, which will include the single certificate provisions. That guidance will make it clear to those registered bodies that have requested a new criminal record certificate, having been prompted by the new update system, that they can ask the applicant to provide a copy of their new certificate within the specified period after issue. It will also make clear that the registered body can, subject to certain conditions, approach the Criminal Records Bureau or the Disclosure and Barring Service after that point to request that a copy be sent to it. The guidance will contain details on how to do that. Our guidance will take into account the needs of sporting and voluntary bodies. By that, I mean that we are concerned to ensure that the guidance will be developed in consultation with those who will want to use it, so that they can be as robust as they and we want them to be in safeguarding children.
	I hope that I have covered all the issues, but I will obviously respond to any issues raised by noble Lords. I beg to move.

Lord Addington: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness and the entire Bill team for our discussions. As she hinted, my amendment was a result of the sports lobby, which deals with a large number of volunteers in a position of trust and power over vulnerable groups, predominantly children. Those groups and bodies are important in delivering a large amount of recreational sporting and other cultural activity within this country, and are dependent on volunteers. It was the relationship of the volunteer with those groups that gave rise to our concerns.
	In the Government's recent sports policy, they are encouraging those volunteer groups to get involved in schools. That is a sensible move, because you get the enthusiasm and up-to-date thinking into schools for them to imbibe sporting culture. If we are to have that level of dependency on such volunteers to provide sporting and other activities, we have to ensure that they are checked. The governing bodies themselves want to know what they need to do and when they need to act. They need a defensive structure in place for the safety of the individual and the activity they are undertaking, which they regard as very important to the well-being of the state.
	The Minister has given us a framework which we can probably work with. If I was being mean, I would say that half a loaf is better than no bread. I think we have three-quarters of a loaf, which is pretty well baked this time. I thank her for that. However, I should like the Minister to take this opportunity to say exactly what is required of the sporting bodies. Will this be made very clear? Will their minimum standards and best practice be stated very clearly in the guidance? If somebody is wheedling their way into your small sports club and making themselves indispensable but you are not quite sure about them or they will not fulfil parts of the CRB check or are delaying it, will it be made clear when you, as a sporting body, should take some action? We do not want to suspend people unnecessarily. We would like the guidance to cover the delicate interaction with people who give up their time for free to support things that are generally regarded as being for the public good. Therefore, can my noble friend give us further assurances about how the process and the framework within which sporting bodies will work?
	My own sport-rugby union-like cricket, has laws, not rules, and the people within it are used to passing down authority from on high. They are well positioned to fulfil this role but if the Government would tell them what to do, that would make things easier for them. I think that the Minister is giving us that sort of information-that is, when you should or should not suspend somebody and what procedure you should go through. We have heard that the guidance is going to be upgraded and if we could be given an assurance in that guidance I would be much happier.
	I thank the noble Baroness and the entire Bill team for the work they have done on this. I think that we are in a much better place but I should like to hear a little more about what is going on-possibly even to the point of overemphasis. However, I thank them for what they have done.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As he said, it is not a perfect solution to the problems created-it does not address the concern of voluntary organisations up and down the country that individuals with minor and irrelevant criminal histories will be deterred from volunteering by having personally to submit their certificates to organisations, and it could strengthen the concern of groups with a high turnover, such as the care sector, that the bureaucracy caused by eradicating what was a quick and automatic process will mean that key roles are not filled quickly enough. However, I believe that accepting the amendment will provide the best iteration of what will potentially be a messy and bureaucratic process, and I think that the clarification requested by the noble Lord will be important to organisations' understanding of the process.
	I also note with pleasure the Government's own amendment. I welcome the fact that, again, they have listened to the concerns of this House. However, I fear that the ultimate result of the changes to the process of CRB disclosure will be a system that is more complex for organisations to administer, and I worry that this could have a stifling effect on our voluntary sector.
	I understand that two separate costs will be involved in the new portable CRB checks: a cost for initial disclosure and a cost for an ongoing subscription to update and validate the disclosure on a rolling basis. How do the Government propose to ensure that they do not create a two-tier system in which some individuals pay for only initial disclosure and do not access the new portability benefits by paying for a subscription? Will the Government confirm whether volunteers will be charged for the ongoing subscription, and why are they seemingly preventing the portability of checks between work with adults and work with children? It looks as though employers will have to apply separately for CRB checks and barring information, despite the fact that the Government are bringing the two organisations under one roof through the new Disclosure and Barring Service. Is this the case? Perhaps I am mistaken.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for their remarks during this short debate. I start by responding to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about the potential for the new arrangements that we are putting in place to deter people from volunteering or to make the process more complex. I would disagree with that. There is the very clear and simple principle to which I referred a few moments ago that, in putting themselves forward, people will understand that they will be subjected to the necessary checks in order to safeguard young people and vulnerable adults. They will know that they will get the opportunity to see that certificate before it is issued not just to a prospective employer, but perhaps to a small group which is run by people who are volunteers themselves-not a big organisation. I think some people will find comfort in that.
	The noble Baroness is right to say that there are some complexities to this wider topic and we have acknowledged that in the course of our debates today. However, we live in a very sophisticated world and I do not think that we should have a system that is not sophisticated enough to ensure that we address those who might put our children at risk. We should also make sure that those who are very able and who would do a really good job working with young children and others are not barred by us having a system that deters them. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from but I disagree.
	My noble friend raised some points about the amendment that we are discussing today. I repeat that we are talking about the single certificate and how a body could check that the person it wants to work with it is suitably cleared. I note what he said about volunteers being encouraged to get more involved in civic society. It could be argued that the new system that we are putting in place will make it easier to accommodate that because the online process, and the system of allowing someone to use the portable arrangements, will mean that we are trying to support people doing something and that we are providing a system to make that work effectively.
	My noble friend asked again about the guidance that we have referred to already. I absolutely understand the point he is making that the organisations, particularly those that survive on the goodwill of the volunteers who work with them, want clarity in ensuring that they are doing the right thing and know how and when to pursue the checks and how and when to follow them up. I can make it absolutely clear to my noble friend that we will develop the guidance in consultation with the voluntary organisations and the sporting bodies that he has introduced during the passage of the Bill. We will want to outline best practice so that they know when is the right time to pursue an individual and check further for the evidence that they need. For example, if the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent it a copy of the certificate within a prescribed period which we envisage to be 21 days, it would have to wait 21 days before making a representation to the relevant body.
	We have listened very carefully to the concerns that were expressed. We want to make sure that the guidance we introduce will provide organisations with the cover that people who are put in positions of responsibility feel that they deserve in order to make sure that they exercise their responsibilities properly. I hope that that provides the assurance that my noble friend seeks.
	The noble Baroness asked about costs and charges, and whether volunteers would be charged for updating. I cannot give her a response today, but I will come back to her on that. She asked also about the difference between CRB checks and barring checks. They exist for different purposes. When somebody is employed, about to be employed or is volunteering to do regulatory activity for an organisation, the organisation has a statutory obligation to ensure that an application is made for that person to be checked and for a certificate to be issued. If the activity is unregulated, the organisation can still pursue a check if it wishes. In the process of the application being made, the authorities will determine whether the barring aspect of the check will kick in. It will not be a case of somebody making a specific request for the barring check; it will happen in the course of the process of application. The uncertainty will be taken care of and the decision will be made by those with the necessary information.
	I hope that I have answered the concerns and points raised today by noble Lords. I beg to move.
	Amendment 54W agreed.
	Amendment 55 not moved.
	Amendment 55ZA
	 Moved by Lord Wills
	55ZA: Before Clause 102, insert the following new Clause-
	"Time limit for decisions involving the public interest
	In section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (time for compliance with request) after "circumstances" insert "provided that it complies not later than the fortieth working day following the date of receipt"."

Lord Wills: My Lords, both amendments in this group were debated in Committee, so I will not detain your Lordships long by rehearsing the arguments again. I am bringing them back because they will improve the Bill by protecting citizens' existing rights to transparency -although they will not extend them-in ways that are consistent with the Government's overall objectives. I am bringing them back also because so far the Government have offered no good reason for rejecting them.
	Amendment 55ZA aims to cut down on delays in responding to freedom of information requests, which can often defeat the intent of the legislation. Such delays can be of more than a year. It is in line with the Information Commissioner's guidance that normally an extension should not be needed but where it is, it should not exceed a further 20 working days. Too often, the guidance is ignored. The amendment will make it more difficult to do so.
	In Committee, when I withdrew an associated amendment, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to contact the Information Commissioner for evidence about the problems that he had encountered from delays in the process of policing the Freedom of Information Act, particularly in relation to the offence of altering records with intent to prevent disclosure. This is a most serious problem for the Information Commissioner in carrying out his functions in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. I would be grateful if in reply the Minister could tell noble Lords what the outcome of that contact has been.
	Amendment 55ZB tackles a consequence of the Localism Act, which will restrict public access to information that the public currently have a right to gain access. As public services currently delivered by local authorities and other public bodies are contracted out-as increasingly they will be under the provisions of the Bill-they will be removed from the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment would restore the status quo: no more than that. So far, the Government have given no adequate justification for resisting the amendment. The amendment is proportionate. Very small businesses, for example, will not be caught by it. The Freedom of Information Act and regulations already contain exemptions to protect the legitimate interests of business, such as trade secrets or information likely to prejudice commercial interests.
	The Government's response in the past-I know the Minister will recognise this-has been that they would prefer to consider these amendments in the light of post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act. I understand that approach. As a delaying tactic, it is pretty good, and on the surface, at least, it looks plausible. However, there are two problems with it. First, the Government's argument would be more plausible if they had not already done what they say they should not do: that is, dealt with transparency in local government piecemeal through the Localism Act and pre-empted the results of post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act. They have done that because the Localism Act already changes the status quo. It does so by weakening transparency in local government, not by strengthening it.
	The second problem is that, should the post-legislative scrutiny and the Government's response to it conclude that there should be action in these areas, and they may well do that, it is likely to take years before an appropriate legislative vehicle can be found to implement these changes. Your Lordships will be well aware of the complexities of the legislative progress and of how long it takes legislation to come before Parliament. There is no guarantee at all. I will be delighted if the Minister can correct me in her response and tell me that the Government already have plans to bring forward this legislation, but just not in the Bill. I would be delighted if that were the case. The reality is more likely to be that it will take years before an appropriate legislative vehicle can be found. That was certainly the experience of my party when we were in government and I doubt whether it is very different now.
	In the mean time, over those years, despite the coalition agreement pledging to increase transparency, the right of citizens to have vital information about public services discharged in their name, for which they have voted and for which they pay, will be weakened, not strengthened. I hope the Government will now take the opportunity that these amendments offer to secure greater transparency in the government of our country for the people we all serve and accept these amendments. I beg to move.

The Earl of Erroll: I shall say a few words because I would have added my name to these amendments if I had been a bit more alert about them. I think they are very sensible. Of the two, I think Amendment 55ZB is probably the more important, although opportunities for delay are always a problem, so I think Amendment 55ZA is sensible.
	In the atmosphere we are going into where there is an awful lot of rejigging of authorities and shared services and procurement, there are a lot of shenanigans going on behind the scenes with people trying to wheel contracts this way and that and shuffling them through different routes. The Government might find it quite useful to have some outside eyes keeping an eye on what is going on here and there, not to penetrate commercial secrets or commercial confidentiality, but sometimes some practices are going on that bear closer scrutiny.
	I think this could go some way to help open up some areas and possibly to assuage unfounded suspicions. Sometimes people develop conspiracy theories in a completely unjustified way. A freedom of information request could expose the fact that the person is barking up completely the wrong tree, but sometimes it may be justified. I think it is very sensible to include this, or otherwise you will have a raft of things taken outside the Freedom of Information Act that are very useful for keeping an eye on what is really going on in the way that we are putting so much through various other sectors.

Lord Lucas: I quite agree that this is something we need to watch. We have similar problems in the health Bill where, for reasons I entirely approve of, activities that used to be done by state bodies may in future be done by private ones. We need to make sure that that does not mess up our objectives on freedom of information, which are, I believe, and certainly should be, towards greater access to information rather than less.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendments, which would make common-sense improvements to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. I will not repeat the arguments he has made so eloquently, but I would like to raise a few points.
	These amendments strengthen the individual's right to freely access public information and the presumption in favour of openness and accountability in public bodies. The democratisation of knowledge and communication through the internet is the most important revolution of our age. People simply do not accept bureaucratic barriers to information any more, and we must have legislation that is alive to responding to new realities. It is therefore essential that the processes for accessing information do not work against the principle that the burden should be on the body providing the information, not on the individual seeking it. This includes the cost of seeking such information and I urge the Government to think again if they are planning to increase charges.
	The 40-day maximum cap on complying with freedom of information requests is both simple and workable. As my noble friend pointed out, it comes from the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, who said:
	"In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days".
	The House has learnt first hand the frustration of delays that can be caused by decisions and successive appeals on the basis of public interest, which no doubt we shall return to when we resume consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill.
	We must seize every opportunity to ensure that the process itself never becomes the reason why individuals are denied access to public information. We must also ensure that the principle of public accountability at the heart of the Freedom of Information Act established by the Labour Government is not diluted by changes in the nature of delivery of public services, as noble Lords have pointed out. As my noble friend has said, the public have a right to access information about how their money is spent and I hope the Minister will seize this opportunity to restore the levels of public sector transparency enjoyed before the Localism Bill was enacted.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I start by making it clear that this Government very much support freedom of information and increasing openness and transparency-there is absolutely no doubt about that. Indeed, I am sympathetic to Amendment 55ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in relation to the timeliness of public interest deliberations, and his proposal to make the Information Commissioner's recommended best practice a statutory requirement.
	Public authorities must answer freedom of information requests promptly. They must not be unnecessarily slow in responding, and any extension to the time limit for responding to such requests should only be claimed where absolutely necessary. As I mentioned to the noble Lord when we debated similar amendments tabled by him in Committee, I have some experience-although not in government-of being on the receiving end of FOI requests that are complex and invoke public interest tests.
	As I said then, it is certainly the case that, in general, timeliness in responding to freedom of information requests is good. In 2010, 86 per cent of requests were answered by bodies monitored by the Ministry of Justice within 20 working days. It is also worth noting that in central government time extensions for the consideration of the public interest test remain relatively rare and the proportion of requests which have resulted in such an extension fell to 4.5 per cent in 2010.

Lord Wills: Will the noble Baroness confirm that those figures do not cover local government? Will she further confirm that it is her understanding as it is mine that most of the interests that the citizens of this country have are in local authority functions and not central government functions?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: I can certainly confirm that the figure I quoted for the extension of requests under the public interest test relates only to central government. As to general requests under FOI, these bodies were monitored by the MoJ. I am afraid that I do not have to hand which bodies they are. The figures do not cover local government.
	However, I accept that there is room for improvement, especially where the deadline is extended to allow consideration of the public interest test. The Information Commissioner is watchful of public authorities where timeliness is an issue and has taken effective action in this area. In 2011, the commissioner announced that out of 33 bodies being monitored in relation to timeliness issues, 26 had made sufficient improvement to be removed from his watch list. While further action is required from the remaining bodies, it is clear that the Information Commissioner's Office has been effective in improving timeliness.
	The introduction of new statutory deadlines is a potential way of strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, as the noble Lord has put forward, provided that it does not lead to hasty decisions that are not fully informed. An absolute limit of 40 days raises some concerns about the potential for such an effect and therefore we need to give the impact of changes of this type full consideration before their introduction. For that reason, I cannot accept his amendment today.
	As the noble Lord has predicted I might say, but not for the reasons he suggests, this is something that I strongly believe should be properly scrutinised and considered in the course of post-legislative scrutiny, which is now under way by the relevant Select Committee of the other place, chaired by the right honourable Alan Beith. I certainly will ensure that he receives the official record of our debate today.
	It is also worth pointing out that I genuinely think that the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, as much as it has merits, requires very careful consideration. I will look forward to his contribution to the process of post-legislative scrutiny that is ongoing.
	Amendment 55ZB, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, seeks to extend the Freedom of Information Act to information held by contractors working on behalf of public authorities about the performance of those contracts where those contracts are worth more than £1 million. The noble Lord has found support today from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is aware, the Government have extended the FOI Act and are taking steps to extend it further. We have made an order under Section 5 of the Act extending its scope to, among others, the Financial Ombudsman Service. We have commenced consultations with more than 200 further bodies about their possible inclusion through future Section 5 orders and we intend to consult more than 2,000 housing associations later this year in relation to their possible inclusion.
	In addition, Clause 103 of this Bill will extend the Act to companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities, thereby removing the anomaly whereby a company is subject to the FOI Act only if wholly owned by one public authority but not by two or more. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that these are significant changes.
	I understand the point that the noble Lord and others have made today that as services are subcontracted out, whether by local government or by other public services which have been mentioned today, the public should not be left short of any information that might be needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of those services. But as I mentioned to the noble Lord in Committee when we debated this, even when a service is subcontracted out, it is still the responsibility of the public authority in terms of the accountability for that service to the public. It is the relevant organisation which should be held to account. In the way in which the contracts are constructed, it should be possible for the public to receive from the contracting authority the information that is needed in order to ensure that the services being carried out and paid for with their taxes are actually performing as they would want them to.
	As my noble friend Lord McNally stressed last year, it is important to ensure that changes to the way public services are delivered do not undermine our pledge to increase openness and accountability, and there is certainly a challenge to be met here. I would like to restate that our continued opposition to this amendment does not stem from any lack of commitment to the cause of increased openness and accountability. We are already considering this issue and it will be further considered in the response to the Cabinet Office consultation on the draft transparency and open data strategy.
	I may have covered this point, but I want also to say to the noble Lord that there is a provision in the FOI Act as it stands that extends its scope to public bodies. I believe that it is set out in Section 5. If and when other public authorities, bodies or organisations should be covered by the Act, we do not need new legislation, or we will be subject to the kind of delay that he seems to think post-legislative scrutiny would bring about. We actually have a mechanism to ensure that as and when we feel it is right and proper to extend the Act, we can do so.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I have a brief question for the noble Baroness. Is she saying that public authorities should be writing into their contracts a provision that would allow for freedom of information requests, and that is what she is relying on rather than it being put into the law?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: No, I am not saying that. I am not in a position to go that far because it would take us into an area on which I do not have the authority to speak today. I am making two separate points. One is that a public authority is the body which is accountable to the public for any services that it might subcontract out. In the course of its contractual arrangements with the subcontractor I would expect, in order to ensure it is properly accountable, it should ensure that it is able itself to access the information it needs. I do not think it is proper to prescribe the detail in the way that has been put forward by the noble Lord. For example, it is not clear how the £1 million contract threshold would be calculated. How would additional payments which might take the value over £1 million be taken account of? Different public authorities might take different approaches to valuation. If that happens, the approach will not be applied consistently. I worry that the amendment might be attractive on its face but deceptively difficult to operate on the ground. I am not saying that issues such as this are insurmountable; I merely use this as an illustration of why careful consideration is necessary to ensure clarity for public authorities, the Information Commissioner and users alike.
	I have also made the point previously that to comply with FOI requests for contractor information public authorities would need to have access to any information held by the contractor that is potentially relevant in terms of responding to the request. Such a requirement to share all such information with the public authority so that the authority might comply with FOI requests could adversely affect the effective delivery of the contract. Again, I am sure that solutions to this issue exist, but they require careful consideration.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that our opposition to the amendments results from the need to make sure that effective and proportionate solutions are developed. It does not result from a lack of a commitment to transparency or the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act. I therefore invite the noble Lord-

Lord Wills: Before the Minister invites me to withdraw the amendment, will she answer two questions for the purpose of clarification? The first is in relation to the undertaking that she gave in Committee to contact the Information Commissioner. Has such contact been made? If so, what was the result of it? If it has not, when will it be made? Secondly, she referred earlier to her belief that the Government have the mechanism and the will to act promptly should they decide that it is necessary to do so, and that the delays that I fear will happen will not take place. Is that mechanism Section 5 of the Act and, if not, what mechanism is she referring to other than primary legislation?

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: On the former of his questions, I am not able to give the noble Lord a reply today, but I will follow it up with him in due course. On the latter, I am not proposing any new legislation; I am referring to Section 5 of the FOI Act, in that it gives us the opportunity and the provision, should we need it, to extend the Act to cover new bodies in the way that we are using it right now. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Wills: I am grateful to the Minister for a characteristically gracious and thorough response. I am grateful, too, for the support that I have received from all sides of the House for both amendments. I am sorry that the Government have not taken account of the compelling cases made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Collins on the Front Bench. I note what the Minister said in relation to Amendment 55ZB and my fear that any legislation will create a delay. She referred to Section 5. I am afraid that this only makes my point: the extension of the coverage of the Act under Section 5 to which she referred, and to which the Government always refer as a great indicator of their commitment to freedom of information, was, I have to tell the Minister, work put in train by the previous Government. I was the responsible Minister. It has taken all this time. That work was started in around 2008-I cannot remember exactly when. Four years later, this Government are now able to claim credit for that. The extension would not necessarily cover all the areas that should be covered by my amendment, so if the Minister is relying on that as a mechanism for speed in rectifying this problem, I am afraid that she is just wrong.
	I hope that the Government will look again at this issue. I hear what the Minister says and I have no doubt about her personal commitment to transparency, but all the noises that we hear in the media as emanating from Whitehall are of the deep hostility of the entrenched, vested interests of the state to this agenda of transparency. All I can say is that I wish the Minister well in her forthcoming battles with those vested interests.
	I do not regard it as part of my role in this House to safeguard the position of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, but the same cannot be said of the Minister, so I am surprised that she continues to resist these amendments. I wonder if Ministers have really thought through what voters and the media will think of a Government who promise to increase transparency and then restrict it. What will they think about the fact that information about services, which is paid for by taxpayers and to which they currently have a right to access information, is now denied to them?
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made an important point about what will happen when all these contracts are let out to private sector companies by local authorities up and down the country. He made the case extremely well and I urge the Minister to look to it. What will happen when those Members of Parliament are berated by their constituents because they are worried about what is being done in their name using their money, and they are told that they cannot have information about it because the Government-that Government of Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs-passed a law that denied them that information? They resisted every opportunity to accept amendments that would have maintained the status quo and given the public that information. What will those MPs turn round and say to the Ministers who let that through? It is not my problem, but I fear for the Minister that it will be her problem and those of her colleagues in the years to come.
	I am much more concerned about a Government who have nobly pledged to increase transparency in the government of this country and are conniving either malignly or through inadvertence in a restriction and a weakening of those rights of the citizen.
	However, having said all that, I note the general words of sympathy that the Minister offered for the principles of transparency. I really hope that Ministers can now make good on them. This issue may go no further in this Bill, but it will not go away. Ministers will be held to account for any failure to secure the rights of the British public to gain access about public functions for which they vote and for which they pay. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 55ZA withdrawn.
	Amendment 55ZB not moved.
	Clause 102 : Extension of certain provisions to Northern Ireland bodies
	Amendment 55A
	 Moved by Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
	55A: Clause 102, page 88, line 35, at end insert "which may set conditions on republication or communication of the data to third parties"

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, the amendment is in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lady O'Neill of Bengarve. She has already given her apologies to the Front Bench. Having sat through two long days on Report, she finds that her commitments can no longer be put off and are subject to the vagaries of how we put our business together in this House. I am sure that noble Lords would have had a much more precise, analytic and forensic speech from her than from me, but I will try to raise the points that I believe she wished to put and express the concerns that I share with her. Those concerns are shared by the wider university community in the UK. I believe that they are grateful to the Minister for the time that he has taken to meet them and to talk to them about some of these issues.
	That being so, there is a shift in atmosphere from the previous amendment because I wish to focus on the implications of the Bill for research and research data sets held significantly by universities and public research institutions.
	Research is an international and very competitive business. There is a risk that some of the provisions of the Bill may undermine the competitiveness of much of our excellent research in this country. That is unintentional, but I hope that I can demonstrate that there are some difficulties that need to be resolved.
	The specific Amendment 55A is a modest suggestion that any licence for reuse of data set may have conditions attached to it following the comments of those whose datasets they are. That is a modest way of protecting the interests of our researchers and the research community and, more broadly, UK plc.
	The impact of the Bill as it stands will be such as to fall on both individual researchers and on institutions. In the case of individual researchers, it will change behaviour. If you change the rules about how research data are to be treated, you will change the behaviour of researchers. They are pretty clever people, so you need to watch out. Beyond that, there are more serious implications.
	It may well be that the provisions of the Bill result in activities that are inimical to and, indeed, unintentionally unjust to individual researchers. The data set, for example, may well have been built up over a long period and involve substantial career commitment by individuals. If you spend your time on large data sets in particular, that is a major-or indeed a lifetime-commitment. The data sets may well have been built up involving the distinctive, significant and, on occasion, unique skills of the individual researcher. I am not quite convinced that the Bill has taken that sufficiently into account. It will certainly be inimical to career development and commitment-and, indeed, in terms of the opportunity costs-in respect of the work of individual researchers. They take time, they do this rather than that, and they use the skills they have, which may well be unique and very distinctive.
	In the case of institutions, there clearly may well be problems where a home or sponsoring institution has invested significant resources in the data sets or in building them. As head of more than one such institution, I know that huge resources are invested to build appropriate data sets, in terms of time, space-which is very important and expensive-individual members of staff and money. These are the commitments the institution makes, and there is a risk that they would be set back dramatically despite the effort and the commitment involved. Equally-this point has been made in previous discussion but it is still there-the institutions may well have commercial interests in the research and data sets in question. Beyond that, we fund universities in such a way that the research assessment exercise depends very significantly on the uniqueness and distinctiveness of research. If the data sets that are the foundation for these are too easily available, that sets at nought the efforts of those who worked on them; and makes it easy for those who did not to pillage those data sets. Academics on the whole are nice people, but when it comes to this kind of competitiveness, all rules are set aside.
	There is one consequence that I am sure is unintended and which relates to the previous amendment-although not perhaps in a congenial way. I declare, unusually, a future interest, which I may have if this legislation goes through. As I understand it, one of the ways of avoiding the data sets moving out too quickly and in an unregulated, uncontrolled fashion is to have co-ownership with some private sector activity, firm or company. My interest would be that I might set up such a company, the sole purpose of which would be co-ownership of data sets with universities and research interests. I could become very rich-but being the chap I am, I would dedicate all the money to a charity to support research in universities. That is one possible way of beginning to avoid the implications of the legislation as I understand it. This is partly jocular but it is more than that. Ingenious people are out there and will find solutions to retain data sets that they, for good reason, believe are important. This is not miserable secretiveness, this is how research operates. This is how the competition deals with those who are involved in research.
	Finally, I believe there is a difficulty in identifying what data sets will fall under this Bill as currently formulated, if it becomes law. What will count? I give the House one example, just as a test. In the description, decoding and understanding of the structure of DNA, Crick and Watson did excellent and magnificent work in Cambridge which was properly recognised with a Nobel Prize. Yet the missing piece in the jigsaw was here in London, with Professor Maurice Wilkins and Dame Rosalind Franklin at King's College London. She is now at last being recognised for her part in this. The data sets of material that she had built up using techniques of electron microscopy were, when they were available to Crick and Watson on a shared basis, what put the final piece of the jigsaw in place. The picture became clear to them and they could move ahead.
	I do not think that these data sets would be ruled out under the definitions given in the Bill, because they are simply printings that you could look at. They are not analysed or pre-digested and there is no interpretation given. If they had been requested belligerently by Crick and Watson, they could have saved themselves the price of a rail ticket to London. Your Lordships can see the implications. What counts as a dataset, when Rosalind Franklin had created this data set that made all the difference to what has changed the course of life for all of us? I believe there are questions about the definition of a data set because the Bill is really meant to deal with other issues initially but, as it so happens, it is now being applied to research and research data sets in some of the best institutions in this country. I beg to move.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 56, but in so doing I start by expressing my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. I will also be incorporating some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, would have made had she been able to be in her place, but for exactly the same reason as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill-the unfortunate and substantial delay in getting to this-other commitments have meant that she needs to be elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster.
	I also want to thank the Minister for the helpful meetings with him and his officials on the complex subjects of universities, the publication of their research and the implications for the practical working of the Freedom of Information Act. In Committee, I outlined a number of problems that universities face that are not analogous to the use of FOI in non-research areas of higher education institutions, not least because of the size, duration and complexity of many research contracts. Universities are mindful of their duties to respond to FOI requests elsewhere, and in the main they absolutely do. Also, the universities that we have talked to about the problems facing research and FOI are clear that this is not special pleading for the sector as a whole over freedom of information. Nor do they support any institution that does not comply with FOI requests in the mainstream.
	The issues here are quite specific. They are about whether the exemptions currently outlined in the Information Commissioner's guidance to the higher education sector can be effectively applied, given the nature of research and whether, in the case of commercial partners, it might give rise to suspicion by those partners that their own confidential data might be seen by others following an FOI request. In Committee, the Minister asked for evidence of where the current exemptions do not apply. Here, from the Information Commissioner's guidance to higher education institutions-which, for brevity, I shall refer to as HEI-are a handful of examples that researchers and their universities have told us really need clarification.
	The guidance on Section 22 refers to information intended for future publication. The information is exempt if it is intended for future publication and it is reasonable to withhold the information until that point, subject to the public interest test. While this will certainly apply to research data which an HEI intends to publish, provided that withholding the information is reasonable, it will not apply if there is no intention to publish the results at the time the request is made, which, as the ICO guidance makes clear, is the relevant time for him.
	In general, HEIs would expect the data supporting research conclusions to be published, or at least to be available to others, when the conclusions themselves are published. However, in the case of longitudinal studies, the decision to publish may not be made until a late stage in the study, not least because it is not clear what will be reported, or how. Moreover, usually the material is published in the form of a peer-reviewed article, which is often only the tip of a much larger iceberg of data that are not published. I am mindful here of the specific example that my noble friend Lady Sharp gave us at an earlier stage of these proceedings about the very complex data set that she managed for decades, which would certainly fall into that last category.
	Would the Minister clarify that the exemption does not specify that the publication needs to happen within a very limited time period? It could apply to long periods, including years, which may be acceptable in some specific cases-for instance, where research is at an early stage.
	Will the Minister also acknowledge that in the case of longitudinal studies the decision to publish may not be made until a late stage of that study, not least because it is not clear what will be reported and how? Will he confirm that normally the public interest will favour the completion of research before publication of the data on which it is based, whether that is intended or not?
	In another example, Section 36 of the Act is headed, "Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs", and states that,
	"Information ... is exempt ... if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, disclosure ... would ... prejudice ... the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation, or ... otherwise prejudice ... the effective conduct of public affairs",
	subject to the public interest test. Again, while the free and frank exchange of views may be necessary as part of the process of building up research results-for example, where a team of researchers is involved, sometimes over many institutions-and it is an essential part of peer review, as was recognised in McLachlan v ICO and MRC, this does not apply comfortably to research data that have been gathered, perhaps over a long period of time, for the purposes of analysis by the researcher himself as opposed to exposure to others. Nor is it obvious that the carrying out of research by HEIs, which are not arms of government, falls within the "conduct of public affairs".
	There are also practical difficulties for HEIs in relying on this exemption. The qualified person is usually the vice-chancellor, and involving the vice-chancellor may be a disproportionate requirement if it is simply understood that research information is entitled to a temporary period of embargo prior to publication of the research conclusions on an as yet indeterminate future date.
	Will the Minister explain how a,
	"free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation",
	can be applied to the collection and generation of research results at a stage prior to peer review or before discussion with third parties is envisaged? His clarification would help to deal with the fact that the current case law on this applies only to peer review. Will he clarify that university research activity falls within the concept of the "conduct of public affairs" and to what extent the vice-chancellor as the qualified person would need to be involved to defend a decision to use this exemption, given that often universities employ many thousands of staff, most of them research staff and teachers? Will he undertake to look at the mechanism underpinning the use of the exemption, subject to the recommendations of the Justice Committee?
	Another example is in Section 38, entitled "Health and Safety":
	"Information is exempt ... if ... disclosure ... would",
	prejudice,
	"the physical or mental health ... or ... safety of any individual",
	subject to the public interest test. This will apply in cases where disclosure may result in the intimidation of researchers such as those involved in the use of animals in research, which we have seen shocking details of in the press, or harm arising from the public's overreaction to misleading and incomplete research. However, not all cases are so extreme, and the harms cited above would not of themselves prejudice the physical or mental health or safety of any individual.
	This debate has shown that the issue is sufficiently important to justify looking more carefully at the legislation at the post-legislative scrutiny stage. Universities should not be required to try to bend exemptions that were not designed specifically for the purpose. Doing so means that universities and individuals are required to spend disproportionate amounts of time and money on expensive advice to try to make arguments to apply existing exemptions. My worry is that this adds up to a potentially disproportionate regulatory burden and, to be frank with the House, a waste of public money, given that most research grants are funded from the public purse. For this reason, I am pleased that Universities UK is calling for an independent review of the operation of the freedom of information in universities. It will form part of its submission to the process of post-legislative scrutiny that is being undertaken by the Commons Justice Committee.
	I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the questions that I have raised about the complexities that surround the exemptions for universities, and whether they are met by the guidance from the Information Commissioner.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, before I speak to my amendment in this group, may I first say that I hope my noble friend will treat the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and my noble friend Lady Brinton with seriousness? It is clear that in an internationally competitive environment it is very important that people have confidence in the proper protection of research databases.
	I disagree with both amendments. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, would blow a hole below the waterline of this clause and would certainly destroy all my attempts to get other information out of universities. The amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, misses important points on the other side. It is terribly important that data become available once results have been published. Many of these programmes go on for a long time. Because we intend to use the data in a whole series of publications over the next 20 years, we will never let them go. However, it must be possible for people outside a research group to criticise the results as they are being produced or false conclusions will be dropped into science and never properly got at. To pick one example, given by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, the inspiration of Crick and Watson had to be combined with the meticulous work of Franklin. Without that combination and the data being made public, the discovery would not have been made.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: On a point of order, it was information shared between research colleagues in two different institutions. In an atmosphere that is perhaps not quite as common today, it was willingly shared.

Lord Lucas: I understand and I remember from reading biographies that that was the case. None the less, the data were shared. To take an example from my time on the Front Bench as spokesman for agriculture during the problem of BSE, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had been meticulously researching what was happening with this plague and had years of data. We had good people internally who were researching it. We did not know what was happening and we kept the data to ourselves. Three weeks after we released the data, we were told what was happening, which was transmission by food. That was right. Making data public, beyond a research group, is a very important thing to do at the right time. I should not like to see something in legislation that prevents that and allows people to hog data that should be public so that they can be properly criticised and understood.
	My amendment is not on the same subject; it concerns technical bits of drafting in the same clause. I very much welcome the determination to provide greater access to data sets. It is something that I have struggled with, particularly with universities. All the universities that send me data stick copyright notices on them, which I studiously ignore. They have yet to sue me for it, probably because they have better things to do. Alternatively, I proposed as a remedy to one university that, if it insisted on its copyright notice, I would automatically generate an FOI exemption for every one of my users who wanted to access the data. The university thought that a number of 10,000 users a day was getting a bit large.
	It is important that we understand that, when information is released under FOI, it can be passed on and made public; and that the generating institution does not retain some sort of control over it merely on a whim. I can understand why that might be the case if the material comprises something done under a publication scheme and is paid for, but otherwise it is very important that the information can be circulated whether in news media or in publications such as mine -the Good Schools Guide-or in many other applications.
	I do not see why the proposals in the Bill do not go further and why they are restricted to data sets. It is common for all kinds of information released under FOI to be accompanied by a copyright. However, it is often obvious from the information that it has no conceivable commercial value to the public authority. A requester may have obtained a policy that he or she wants to publish on a website which demonstrates alleged shortcomings in an institution; for example, it may show that a decision has been taken without proper consideration of the consequences. The requester may want to write to Members of this House about the information that has been disclosed. Why should they be prevented from doing so by a copyright notice? It seems to me that the principles we are setting out in this clause should go further.
	My second concern is about the definition of "data set", which I believe is unjustifiably narrow. The Cabinet Office carried out an open data consultation which sets out admirably ambitious objectives for the greater use of data sets. Many collections of data currently gathered by public bodies which may be essential to revealing the inner workings of government do not seem to fall within the legal definition of a data set as set out in Clause 102(2). Any electronic collection of data which is the result of analysis or interpretation cannot be a data set because of new Section (5)(b)(i) of the definition. The obligation to release it in reusable form will not apply to it, nor will the requirements to release it subject to the minimal restrictions embodied in a specific licence. The Information Commissioner will not be able to require that this collection of data must be published under an authority's publication scheme. It seems that only raw data untouched by human hand are to be affected by this clause. That may suit people like me who spend their day with programs interpreting data, but most people want access to something which has been prepared for human consumption and has been set out in a way that members of a local authority are intended to understand rather than the geeks in their data department. I do not understand why the Government are seeking to exclude from this clause data which have been made human readable, as it were.
	Paragraph (c) of the definition states that a data set remains one only so long as all or most of the information in it,
	"remains presented in a way that (except for the purpose of forming part of the collection) has not been organised, adapted or otherwise materially altered since it was obtained".
	I am puzzled by that definition. A publication of data from a database may start off in the form of a spreadsheet consisting of three columns but is reorganised to consist of seven columns. Has enough been done to prevent the data set being published? How is anyone to know that? How is anyone to interpret that? How is any user to know that something is publishable? It seems to me that we are setting ourselves up for endless arguments. I am particularly concerned that authorities may find that, by reorganising data, they are able to conceal it from publication. It does not seem to me that that is the Government's intention. I very much hope that they will explain to me their understanding of how this subsection may not be used in that way.

Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I support the intention, if not the precise wording, of Amendments 55A and 56. I feel that, if the legislation goes forward as is proposed at the moment, a series of what I hope are unintended consequences will ensue, which will be seriously damaging to the research community in this country.
	One of the points that has not yet been made or emphasised is that the ability to demand information under the Freedom of Information Act is international, so it may be demanded by any person, anywhere in the world, without any specific purpose whatever. We may say that there is copyright, or that the information is released under certain conditions, but probably the places that we would have most concern about making demands of this kind would not respect these conditions, and we would have no means of enforcement.
	A serious point, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas-although I do not support the purpose with which he made it-is that it is not clear from the legislation, as it now stands, what constitutes a data set. My days at the bench are a little behind me, but if I spend a couple of days carrying out a series of experiments and arrive at a series of data points, are they instantly a data set which may be requested by the competition, in North America or elsewhere, and incorporated, published and what have you? The results may or may not have significant commercial significance, but it would certainly undermine the career of an individual who was making them if they were pre-published by someone else.
	I wonder whether we should not think of some reasonable amount of time-this concept has been used by research councils from time to time-during which the results of any particular piece of research should be accessible only to those who have carried it out, after which they could be available subject to the Freedom of Information Act: a year, maybe, or two years, or something like that. Certainly the results should be in the public domain; but equally, the person or group that has put in the time, building the apparatus and making painstaking observations, should be the person or group with first access to them.
	Another point worth making is that the costs of redaction of some of the information which would be freed under the legislation at the moment are really significant. As I understand it, they would be able to be passed on to the individual or group requesting the information. However, a good example would be data which were acquired from a health study-perhaps clinical trials, or something of that kind-where all the information that would have made it possible to identify the individuals concerned has to be removed: this is a long and expensive business and it is the kind of cost against which someone requiring the data might seek to complain. Provided all of these things are genuinely covered, it seems to me that this is not a serious point, but it has to be recognised.
	Overall, what the Government have to recognise is that the net effect of the legislation going ahead as it is now would be to make the UK a relatively unattractive place to do research. It seems to me that this goes counter to the trend of all other government thinking.

Viscount Hanworth: I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 56. It is clear that this amendment is seeking to address a substantial problem with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We have seen some remarkable evidence of how the provisions of the Act can be used maliciously to frustrate research programmes by those who dislike the conclusions that the research is supporting. Is it not the freedom to conduct research without hindrance that we ought to be protecting? It is clear that the existing regulations within the Act that relate to vexatious requests have proved to be inefficient in warding off the nuisance. The amendment seems to fulfil that purpose perfectly.

Baroness Benjamin: My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 56. In speaking to it I declare an interest as the Chancellor of the University of Exeter. I too thank the Minister for the time that he spent meeting with those of us who have concerns, which was much appreciated.
	The Minister argued in Committee that there is little evidence to support the view of the university sector that the Freedom of Information Act is causing difficulties in universities. However, I have spoken to colleagues at the University of Exeter who have given me the clearest possible indications that this is not so, and have told me where the problem lies. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the importance of dealing with those problems and concerns effectively.
	In particular, the University of Exeter has described the difficulties which the Freedom of Information Act creates when the university negotiates contracts with commercial companies-for example, where the university is working closely with a company to carry out research that might lead to a commercial product and where release of information might prevent a patent or product emerging.
	Exeter is not alone. The University of Oxford has described similar difficulties with contract negotiations. For example, Glenn Swafford, the director of research services at the University of Oxford and a man with direct experience of negotiating commercial contracts, has provided examples of exactly these sorts of difficulties. In one case, the university was in negotiations with a large multinational company for a studentship involving £24,000 funding. Significant resources went into the negotiations, with FOI being the major sticking point. The contract was not signed, and although a one-off compromise was secured because the project in question was already under way, Oxford believes that the relationship has been permanently soured. The university has provided other similar examples of long and difficult negotiations.
	The point is that large multinational companies have plenty of choices about who they choose to do business with. We want them to do business with UK universities. This Government and the one before them have done much to encourage this kind of research collaboration. But universities across the country believe that this legislation is a barrier to all that. We must take that risk seriously. As Universities UK has pointed out, my noble friend the Minister has argued that there is not enough evidence of harm to justify this amendment. I and others believe that if he examines the material that Universities UK has collected he will see that there is clear evidence of harm.
	Secondly, much of what universities have argued has been about the consequences that this legislation may have in terms of people deciding not to invest in UK research. This will be a disaster. Companies do not generally publicise those types of decisions. That is not a reason for ignoring the risk to the UK's economic interests.
	Therefore, I would like to ask my noble friend three questions. Does he acknowledge that universities have commercial interests, for example, competing for students, academics and research grants? Will he undertake to reflect on how far the current exemption for commercial interests extends to universities' competitive interests? Lastly, can he explain how or whether the exemption for commercial interests might apply where information does not have the quality of a trade secret, because it is not yet commercially exploitable, but nevertheless points towards commercially exploitable information, perhaps subject to further exploration or research?
	I believe that we all want to send a clear message that this Government have our universities' best interests at heart, and wish to protect their standing in the world so that they are recognised internationally as institutions that produce high-quality research with integrity and in confidence. A moral decision has to be made to secure this philosophy. I hope that the Minister will think again and look favourably on this amendment.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I support both Amendment 55A and Amendment 56. I do not want to repeat all the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I must admit that I found it exceedingly difficult to follow what he was saying at various points in his speech. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on the issues that he raised and explain them to the rest of the House. I also felt that the noble Lord had misunderstood some of the things said by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who was referring to the release of research data before publication, not after it. I think he was confused about that.
	I want to reinforce two points. The first has already been raised today, and I raised it in Committee, which is the cost of all this to universities, and higher education institutions in general, when they have to release enormous amounts of data, prepare them for reuse and sometimes have to redact large amounts of data. Can the Minister reassure the House that he will look again at the regulations that relate to charging for such work? Otherwise, publicly funded institutions will have to spend large amounts of taxpayers' money on requests to release information which may be justifiable in the public interest, but where the cost may be too high to make it desirable.
	I also want to reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. Universities are slightly difficult to define as institutions. They are not public bodies under any conventional definition, although they are of course in receipt of substantial amounts of public money. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister could reply to the noble Baroness's questions about how they are to be defined with respect to commercial interests. The work that they undertake in knowledge transfer may have substantial commercial impacts on them. We need to know whether something which may not be a trade secret but may eventually lead to viable, commercially exploitable data and work should be defined as commercial.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I speak as Chancellor of the University of Essex and as a lawyer who has spent a good deal of his professional time dealing with issues of publication of research, in particular in relation to the Association of Medical Research Charities. I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Brinton and all the arguments advanced in support of it.
	I shall make two points. The first is strongly to support what Universities UK has requested, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Brinton. If ever there was an area of law and practice in need of thorough practical review and, as far as possible, simplification, it is this, because it is a nightmare at the moment and getting worse. Without my noble friend's amendment, or something like it, it will get a lot worse. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, made the point that it would be severely self-damaging if we in this place were to encourage a state of affairs that put us at a competitive disadvantage with other countries.
	I emphasise that this is a playground for lawyers and a nightmare for everyone else as it is because the judgments on the different aspects of this extremely difficult balancing act between freedom of public information on the one hand and necessary and proper restraint on the other could not be more complex. I do not envy my noble friend in having to summarise the debate, but I hope that the Government will take the Universities UK request seriously and urgently and that he will be able to support the practical and sensible points in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Brinton.

Lord Judd: My Lords, this country desperately depends on the quality of research in universities. Our future depends on its quality in economic but also in social terms. I am concerned about the chilling effect of the present situation. Young researchers beginning to flex their muscles in applying their originality of thought and their intellectual excellence feel that they have to be very careful about how they do that, lest something is taken out of context and used by people for purposes which have nothing to do with objectively trying to assist good research.
	I have seen a circular used in a university sent from people in the administrative department not only to younger members of staff but quite widely to staff reminding them of the hazards of the Freedom of Information Act and the need for them to take great care in the way they approach their contribution to research. That made a huge impact on me when I saw it. I thought it was the beginning of the end. It had a cooling effect, a chilling effect. What should have gone out, if anything, was a robust letter saying, "We are determined as a university to support our researchers in every way possible, whatever the implications under the Freedom of Information Act". I am fully in favour of the principles of the Freedom of Information Act, but to pretend that there is not a tension here, with dire consequences if it is not properly handled, is stupid. It would be wise of the Government to listen carefully to what was said in moving the amendment and to take seriously the experience and concern of Universities UK.

Lord Bew: My Lords, I support Amendments 55A and 56. I must confess the interest of being a working professor in one of our universities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has spent much time with those of us who have been concerned about these matters. I am very grateful to him for that.
	The Government's view is that the exemptions already present mean that many of the fears held in this Chamber are unjustified. I want to make one brutal, simple and crude point, which partly picks up on the points already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We must think about multinational concerns and how the country is viewed from outside. For example, let us take the case of our libel law. Our senior judiciary genuinely believes that it is wrong to believe that London is the libel capital of the universe. Genuinely, it says, "If you look more closely at the facts of the case, it is not quite so". Perhaps that is right; perhaps it is wrong. The world has made up its mind that London is the libel capital of the universe. That clearly affects the way that the world behaves. It may be unfair, but the world has made up its mind. Similarly, in this case, it is not worth taking the risk of the world making up its mind that there might be this or that exemption in existing law but somehow universities in the United Kingdom are not as secure places to invest in research as universities in France or the Republic of Ireland-or even in Scotland-where there are higher barriers. I wish to underline that brutal point about international perception.
	Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady O'Neill has had to go. I want to make one point which I know was on her mind in moving her amendment. Her concern relates to public authorities-here, meaning universities and other publicly funded institutes-being required to release research data sets on which they hold copyright in a reusable form without any conditions on their subsequent dissemination. A research data set that is released without conditions on its further use is, in effect, made available to the entire world and so will be fully available in jurisdictions where respect for intellectual property is poor and remedies for its violation are non-existent. In other words, we are talking about something entirely different from the case involving Cambridge, King's College London and Professor Crick, which we talked about earlier. It is an entirely different utilisation of another person's data set.
	I was discussing this with a distinguished researcher at our university at the weekend. She said to me, "Actually, I'm sitting on a very sophisticated data set and it is just about possible that I am not asking the rights questions of it. There might be somebody in another United Kingdom university who would ask different questions and could do something with it. It is just about possible that that might be so". However, the danger-and it is the concern that the amendment of my noble friend Lady O'Neill addresses-is: if we do not control the reusable aspects of such an exchange, we will leave ourselves open in a way which is not sensible from a national point of view. I am sure it is the view of my noble friend Lady O'Neill that we cannot ignore the reality that science is both international and competitive and that sophisticated science is now done in some places where there is scant respect for intellectual property. An unreciprocated requirement for United Kingdom university researchers to provide any data sets that they create and hold without any conditions on their republication or dissemination will damage the competitive position of UK researchers and so of UK science.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I have spoken before in favour of Amendment 56 and shall not repeat the arguments which illustrate how much work goes into cleaning up the raw data necessary to form data sets to develop meaningful analysis and the problems that can arise from forced distribution before those data have been properly presented and analysed.
	I should like to reinforce the arguments made around the Chamber about what a disincentive to young researchers it is if they feel that all their work can be poached and used by somebody else. As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned, it is also open to foreign researchers to poach and make use of those data, pre-empting the results. Similarly, it can be a disincentive to commercial collaboration, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, suggested in relation to her amendment, one way to prevent the data being poached is to collaborate with a commercial partner. However, at a time when Her Majesty's Government are trying to encourage collaboration between commercial partners and universities, it seems very unfortunate to encourage the use of freedom of information in this way.
	What I cannot understand is the Government's opposition to the amendment. Effectively, this scheme has been piloted in Scotland and has been found to be very satisfactory. It is very unusual for us to have legislation that has been piloted in this way. Given that it has proved so satisfactory, I cannot understand why the Government are so resistant to accepting it.

Lord Nickson: My Lords, I have made a rare appearance here because I thought that the Scotland Bill would be coming up yesterday and was suitably disappointed. I did not come to speak in this debate. However, having spent a lifetime in industry and having also been fortunate enough to be the chancellor of a very junior Scottish university to that of my noble friend Lord Sutherland, I should like to say to the Minister and the Government that I have never heard a debate in this House containing such conviction, unanimity and passion, and given with such authority from so many sides. I am deeply impressed by what I have heard. I merely rise to support the amendments and to plead with the Minister and the Government to take what has been expressed with great seriousness.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I should like to add a couple of words to the debate. I have a sort of interest in that I am helping a New Zealand company called Pingar, which works in the area of contextual data extraction from large unstructured data sets-what are called "big data".
	One is aware that there is a huge amount of information out there, particularly in public data sets, which can be reused very usefully, and on that I agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. We must try to make this information available in useful ways. We could make a lot more use of this information to help the country, and indeed humanity, as a whole.
	I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the definition of data set is most peculiar. When information is analysed and put into tables and some sense is made of it, further information may then be extracted and combined with other data, and that is probably the best use that can be made of it. Therefore, it seems a bit odd to include in the definition only raw data before it is analysed. However, it is probably that I just do not properly understand the Bill and all its ramifications in that area.
	However, there is an area where I sympathise entirely with these two amendments. A research establishment in a university is publicly funded and is at the cutting edge, and it may spend a lot of money acquiring raw data. Having to reveal those data to someone else before anything is done with them is like giving that other person a free ride regarding all their data acquisition. Why should someone not be second into the field, waiting until someone else has spent all the money acquiring the data, asking for the data set and then running their own analysis? For a researcher, the most valuable part is the raw data.
	I found it fascinating that on Amendments 55ZA and 55ZB the Minister was urging secrecy-we had to keep all this stuff from the Civil Service secret so that citizens could not find out whether their money was being used usefully. Now, we are opening up everything where public money has been spent so that UK plc can advance itself in the research area and so on. We are suddenly opening that up so that anyone can get hold of it.
	The first of the two amendments relates to putting copyright restrictions on data sets to make sure that they cannot be taken freely, yet in other legislation the Government are making sure that we give large amounts of money to large American corporations which have bought copyright from British creators so that they can enforce that copyright. Therefore, we are looking after the interests of large commercial companies but we are not looking after the interests of our research establishments and universities. I am terrified that they are going to lose the competitive edge that they might have.
	The interesting thing that came out of the whole Crick/Watson DNA episode was the fact that they got together-there was a meeting of minds in an informal environment where they exchanged ideas. Again, what worries me is that the Government are trying to prevent that with their Immigration Rules and tier 2 immigration arrangements so that we will no longer attract people and encourage a flow of brains in and out of the country. That would be far more valuable than trying to open up data sets so that other people could use them abroad.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I support Amendments 55A and 56. I do not believe that this is about restricting the scope of the Freedom of Information Act; it is about fixing the Act to fit the purpose. We have heard compelling arguments about disincentives to young researchers and to collaboration and about the potential competitive disadvantage that our universities could suffer. Our universities are one of the most important drivers of jobs and growth in this country. They enrich the cultural fabric of our society. If universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland believe that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared with those in Scotland, the US and Ireland, among others, I believe that we need to have a safeguard in place. We should heed their concerns and seek to revise our legislation as soon as possible. I support both amendments.

Lord Henley: My Lords, some time ago my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said that he was looking forward to me summarising the gist of this debate. I have to say to him that I do not think I am capable of doing that and I am not going to attempt it. However, I was grateful for one or two comments from just one or two out of a large number of speakers. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Judd-perhaps I may refer to him as my noble friend, as he comes from the same county as I do. He referred to the importance of the principles behind the Freedom of Information Act. I think that it would have been slightly more helpful if we had heard a bit more in support of the principles behind that Act and what it was set out to do. It was an Act passed by the previous Government and one that we, under no circumstances, want to roll back at all. We understand the concerns put by the higher education sector.
	I would never be one to underestimate the concerns of the higher education sector, a sector that is probably better represented in this House than any other group in the country. I have been higher education spokesman in this House on two separate occasions so I know how powerful a body it is. Therefore, we listen to it with great care and I will take considerable care in everything I say. For that reason, I remind the House, as my noble friend did on an earlier amendment, that there will be a full post-legislative review of the workings of the Freedom of Information Act. That review is being carried out under my right honourable friend Alan Beith, the chairman of the Justice Committee in another place, and I shall certainly ensure that he gets a copy of this debate. Even if I did not send it to him, I am sure that he would take note of it.
	As I said, I do not think it is up to me to try to summarise the debate, but I want to try to allay some of the concerns that have been put by noble Lords. I start by dealing with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. I fully accept her apology. I saw her at lunchtime today and I know perfectly well that she was not able to be here. Similarly, I say to my noble friend Lady Brinton that I knew that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was not able to be here. One of the problems with the way in which we do business is that sometimes things happen and it is impossible for noble Lords to be present for a debate.
	In his new amendment, the noble Lord seeks to amend our new Section 11A of the Freedom of Information Act by making a further provision in relation to the conditions that may be specified in a licence authorising the reuse of copyrighted data sets. The intention behind the noble Lord's amendment is to ensure that such licences contain conditions which restrict republication or communication of data sets to third parties. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that public authorities, when making their data sets available for reuse, must use one of the specified licences which will be set out in the code of practice in due course. This amendment seeks to allow the specified licences to set conditions on republication or communication of the data set to third parties.
	I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary because the specified licence may already set any conditions such as these. Whereas previously public authorities could have relied on their powers under copyright law not to allow reuse of their data sets, Clause 102 will allow all public authorities to license the reuse of data sets for which they hold the intellectual property rights, to the benefit of the public and in accordance with the Government's commitment on transparency.
	The terms of the licences for reuse will be specified in the revised code of practice, which will ensure that standardised licences are used so that public authorities-universities-know what is required and the public know what to expect. Published licence terms will provide clarity, certainty and consistency as to how information and data can be reused. In most cases, public authorities will use the open government licence to make data sets available for reuse. Public authorities across the wider public sector are increasingly making their information, in particular their transparency data, available under the open government licence. The Government encourage the adoption of the open government licence throughout a range of policy guidance and by working with stakeholders.
	To the extent that we are affecting public authorities' copyright rights, it is only in relation to making data sets available to the public for reuse under licence. If information is held by the public authority but is not owned by it, it is most likely that the rights to the information will be owned by a third party and therefore it would not have the authority to license its reuse. The clause does not affect any other rights and the licences will still require acknowledgement of the data sets' ownership and source when reused, and will not allow for distortion, derogatory treatment or misrepresentation.
	By setting out the specified licences in the statutory code of practice, it will ensure that standardised licences are used, and these licences will cover all conditions on reuse which are considered appropriate. The statutory code of practice will be issued by the Secretary of State, who must consult the Information Commissioner and then lay the code before Parliament so that Parliament will have a chance to see it. However, licensing conditions, including any conditions on reuse, would be a matter for consideration when revising the code of practice. It is not appropriate to prescribe some of the conditions, as proposed by the noble Lord in the amendment, in primary legislation.
	The noble Lord also made some significant general points about the Freedom of Information Act and it is important that I address those, but I propose to address them in the context of my noble friend Lady Brinton's Amendment 56.
	Before considering that amendment, I turn to Amendment 56ZA, in which my noble friend Lord Lucas has suggested that the whole clause could be removed in its entirety. I suppose that might be a solution for all noble Lords. We could start from scratch, but I am not proposing that at the moment. However, as my noble friend has indicated, his main purpose is to probe the definition of a data set, as provided for in this clause. I am grateful to him for meeting me last month so that I could better understand his concerns. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who came to a whole series of meetings. I have a sneaking suspicion that in this debate I should be offering yet further meetings with any noble Lords who wish to have them so that we can sort this out. This is something that we need to get straight before Third Reading.
	The Freedom of Information Act provides the public with a right to access information that is held by a public authority as defined by the Act. The intention of Clause 102 is to make available for reuse as much raw data held by public authorities-universities in this case-as possible so as to encourage greater transparency and accountability. The clause brings together access and reuse, and the Government believe that encouraging greater use of raw data sets and their reuse under licence will allow the public and organisations to use them, for example, to develop new applications.
	The definition of a data set in new Section 11(5) of the Freedom of Information Act is necessary as there is currently no such definition in that Act. However, I assure my noble friend that, in providing for a particular definition of a data set for the purpose of the new duty to release such data sets in a reusable format, we are not prohibiting the release of other data sets that have been subject to alteration or analysis, as they are already provided for in the Freedom of Information Act. It is important to be precise with the definition so that public authorities know what is expected of them when releasing raw data sets for reuse under the Act.
	Amendment 56, in the name of my noble friend Lady Brinton, seeks to introduce a new exemption in the Freedom of Information Act to provide enhanced protection for information relating to research programmes and projects. In responding to the points made by my noble friend and others, I hope that I will be able to provide appropriate reassurances on this issue. We are all agreed that the UK's position at the forefront of international research must be protected and enhanced. I would not want to do anything that could endanger that. We are also agreed that, notwithstanding this Government's commitment to transparency, adequate safeguards must exist within information rights legislation to make sure that that position is not undermined through inappropriate and premature disclosure. We understand the point that the universities made. From discussions that I have had, from the debate and from Committee, I am well aware of the concern that exists in the sector on this issue.
	Before outlining why I believe that adequate protection already exists, I will consider the cost of responding to requests. This point was raised by a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Although a new exemption would not provide protection in this regard, I am aware that, for example, the cost of anonymisation and redaction is of major concern. The noble Baroness and others made that point. I assure her and others that the Government are mindful of that, and of the costs that it would bring to public authorities.
	The Freedom of Information Act, passed by the previous Government, provides that where it would cost more than a certain amount to locate information that has been requested, there is no obligation to provide it. The cost limits beyond which freedom of information requests need not be complied with, and the mechanisms for charging for information, are detailed in the Act and in regulations made under Sections 9, 12 and 13. I have the sections in front of me if noble Lords wish to study them in detail. These arrangements apply across the entire public sector, not just to higher education. It is therefore important that, while cost limits and fees should take into account the views of particular sectors, any discussion about correct levels should be conducted in the round.
	As I mentioned, the Act is currently subject to post-legislative scrutiny. It is for the Justice Select Committee in another place to make sure that it considers it in the right manner. I anticipate that it will want to look at what has been said. Therefore, I repeat that I will certainly write to Sir Alan and make it clear that we debated this in Committee and today, and I will make sure that the concerns first enunciated at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, are relayed to him.
	In relation to Amendment 55A, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, questioned whether it was appropriate to amend the Act before the outcome of post-legislative scrutiny was known. That concern, too, was put to me in Committee. Through the Bill, we are introducing key transparency commitments set out in the coalition agreement. In the much wider exercise of post-legislative scrutiny we will look at what other changes could usefully be made to improve the Freedom of Information Act for the public and for all bodies subject to it.
	I appreciate the argument that the Government have asked Parliament to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of the Act and that we ought to wait for the outcome of the review before introducing Clause 102. However, we see the new right to data sets available for reuse as a different matter, and we are committed to implement our commitment to transparency and open data to release the benefits to the public as soon as possible. However, I will offer some reassurance on the timing of the commencement of Clause 102. As I indicated, we will need to revise the code of practice made under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act before the provisions can be brought into force. That will necessarily take time, and public authorities will need adequate notice. Given this, we do not envisage commencing the provisions before the summer, which will allow the post-legislative scrutiny process to take its course without delaying the commencement of the clause. We are committed to ensuring that the Freedom of Information Act works effectively, and post-legislative scrutiny is key to this.
	I turn back to some of the exemptions. The key is for the Government's desire to ensure an appropriate level of transparency in public life not to undermine the ability of universities to carry out the sort of ground-breaking research for which they are justly renowned. In the ever more competitive environment in which our higher education institutions operate, the ability to do so free from obligations to reveal their thinking at too early a stage is crucial. The Freedom of Information Act seeks to achieve this balance by providing exemptions to the obligation to disclose material in response to a request made under the Act. The Act currently achieves exactly that balance. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was no doubt part of the team that steered the Act through this House.
	As I said in Committee and in further meetings with noble Lords, a number of exemptions protect research-related material. Therefore, the amendment provides alternative protection rather than necessary additional protection and is not necessary. Protection already exists in Section 43 for trade secrets and for information the disclosure of which would be at least likely to damage commercial interests, and in Section 41 for information provided in confidence. I think that we are agreed that it would be improper to provide an absolute guarantee of confidentiality in relation to research programmes, because the Act does not do so for any other type of commercially sensitive information. It is therefore appropriate for Section 43 to be subject to a public interest test in this context, as it is in all others. My noble friend's proposed new exemption would also be subject to both a public interest and a substantial prejudice test, so she cannot believe otherwise.
	I am aware of other concerns relating to the scope of Section 43: for example, concerning its ability to protect information where future commercial exploitation is the long-term aim but is not yet realisable owing to a research programme being at an early stage. Concerns have also been raised about situations where a university's financial and academic position may be undermined, and damage may be done to its ability to secure funding, to its research ratings or to its ability to attract high-calibre students. Again, these are entirely legitimate concerns. It is important that universities should be able to compete in an increasingly demanding marketplace.
	It is not for me to prejudge any request that might be submitted; it will be for the Information Commissioner to determine whether any decision taken by a university to employ an exemption is correct. Therefore, my further remarks will be hypothetical in nature. Section 43 will be relevant where commercial prejudice is likely, and may be used where the public interest test favours non-disclosure. I see no reason, for example, why in an appropriate case the exemption should not cover an early-days case of the sort I mentioned. The information that a particular research team was looking into an issue could itself be commercially damaging if it enabled a rival to gain an insight into the methods the team intended to use that it would not otherwise have had. This might be so despite the fact that details of the research were not yet available for commercial exploitation. As always, the facts of the case will be key and the university will have to show that there would be commercial prejudice and that the public interest favoured non-disclosure.
	I appreciate that I have spoken at length. I could go on about other exemptions-for example, in Sections 40 and 22-but now is not the time to do so. I will repeat, first, that we have a commitment to greater transparency, which is why we will not introduce new exemptions into the Freedom of Information Act unless the necessity for doing so is clearly demonstrated. Secondly, post-legislative scrutiny is taking place, and that will be the time to look at these matters. Having said that, I repeat that I am more than happy to have further discussions with noble Lords between now and Report.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very careful reply, the care he has taken over the various points made and his willingness to have further discussions. I have no doubt that that offer will be taken up.
	However, I have two or three points. First, I have no doubt that the commitment to freedom of information is as strong among those who proposed these amendments as it is with the Government. In fact, one of my prouder moments, many years ago, was when I was given an award by the society that campaigned for what became the Freedom of Information Act because of the way I conducted a particular government inquiry. I am committed to the importance for public services and within the public sector of freedom of information.
	Secondly, I will read with care what the Minister said about licences. One question that I will want to have answered-it may well be in Hansard-is about what degree of input a researcher, a research institute or a university will have into the drawing up of the licence that is applied to a particular publication. I am not yet clear whether Rosalind Franklin's photographs would have fallen under the definition of a data set. If they had fallen under that definition, I do not think the cause of science or human life would have been advanced by having them accessible to whoever wanted to use the Freedom of Information Act to drag them up at that stage.
	My third point is on the costs of responding. I chaired a group that advised a research project in Scotland called Generation Scotland. I shall not go into the details, but it was shot through with personal information. I can reassure the Minister that the cost of redacting any of that would be immense. Indeed, such is the sensitivity at a personal level of some of the information that the body responsible for managing it allows no one individual access to the whole data set. It is a double-lock situation, and that is absolutely right. That is not against the public interest; it is in the public interest and that of the 15,000 families in Scotland that have contributed very sensitive information for that research.
	I welcome the comments and look forward to more detail on the timing of the commencement of Clause 102. In closing, I simply re-emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh. We are talking about information for the public. In this case, the public is the entire world. The public is every competitor we have in the research business and in the commercial business that will spin out from it. That is still the real concern.
	With the intention of discussing this with my noble friend Lady O'Neill, at this stage, I withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 55A withdrawn.
	Amendments 56 and 56ZA not moved.
	Amendment 56A
	 Moved by Lord Berkeley
	56A: After Clause 104, insert the following new Clause-
	"Public authorities
	(1) The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) In Part VI (other public bodies and offices: general) of Schedule 1 (public authorities), after "The Consumer Panel established under section 16 of the Communications Act 2003" insert "The Corporation of Trinity House"."

Lord Berkeley: This amendment is designed to include Trinity House within the scope of the Freedom of Information act. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has reminded the House this evening that a review of the FOI Act is going on, which is very welcome, but I am hoping that the Government will accept my amendment on the basis that they have already committed to include Trinity House in the FOI Act, as I shall demonstrate, and it would save a lot of time and effort.
	Trinity House is the lighthouse and navigation aids authority that maintains the navigation aids around the coast of England and Wales. I think it should be included because I believe it is a public body. Ships going into UK ports pay light dues into a central fund called the General Lighthouse Fund, which is administered and disbursed by the Department for Transport to the three lighthouse authorities in England, Scotland and Ireland. This amendment would bring Trinity House in line with the Northern Lighthouse Board, which looks after the lights in Scotland and is already covered by FOI. If Ministers are concerned about how much extra work it would be for the GLF, I understand that the Northern Lighthouse Board has received just over 40 FOI inquiries, so I do not think it is any great effort for lighthouse authorities to be included.
	I thought of including the Commissioners of Irish Lights in this amendment, but since the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning MP, is at the moment negotiating with the Irish Government a very welcome change so that the lights around Ireland are not funded by ships going into UK ports by the time of the next election, I thought I would leave the Commissioners of Irish Lights out.
	The Independent Light Dues Forum wrote to the Ministry of Justice on 25 January 2011 welcoming the ministry's announcement about opening public bodies to public scrutiny and the possibility of including Trinity House within FOI. The ministry responded on 23 February last year saying that Trinity House would be consulted about possible inclusion, which is absolutely right, of course. On 5 May, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that stated:
	"We intend to extend the Act to bodies which we believe to perform functions of a public nature, such as the Trinity House Lighthouse Service, through secondary legislation under section 5 of the Act rather than the Protection of Freedoms Bill".
	He did not say why. It would achieve the same objective if this Bill were amended now.
	When she replies, will the Minister say why it matters which legislative route is to be used to deliver the same outcome? I think it is quite important that this happens quite quickly. It is a year since this was first raised, and I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment, if only to avoid me bothering her again. I beg to move.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction of his amendment. As he explained, the Government announced on 7 January last year our intention to consult a number of bodies about them being subject to the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of an order made under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is not in his place because this is relevant to the earlier debate.
	A body may be included in such an order to the extent that it exercises functions of a public nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, this consultation includes the Trinity Lighthouse Service and is currently ongoing. The consultation process is an important one. It is designed to ensure that all relevant legal and policy factors are considered before a final decision is made about whether some, or all, of the functions of a body such as Trinity House should be covered by the Act.
	The Corporation of Trinity House undertakes a number of important functions. Without wishing to express a view while the consultation is ongoing, I can understand why the noble Lord might consider its functions as a general lighthouse authority to be the sort of thing that could be covered by the FOI Act. As he said, the letter that he received from my noble friend Lord McNally stated that to be the case. The fact that the Northern Lighthouse Board is already covered obviously provides another point of comparison.
	However, the Corporation of Trinity House also undertakes a number of other functions as a charity and as a provider of deep sea navigation pilots for ships trading in northern European waters. In light of this, we need to consider carefully which, if any, of the corporation's functions should be brought within the Act. The consultation process currently taking place is designed to allow for this sort of consideration to take place.
	In response to the noble Lord's specific question about why it cannot be done via this Bill, I have two points. First, the process of consultation is already under way. As he knows better than I, Trinity House is a complex organisation because not all of its functions would be captured by public authority functions. It is something that requires careful consideration. That has started; it is under way. Secondly, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in an earlier debate, the Freedom of Information Act provides the facility for us to extend the scope of the Act to a public authority, or at least part of an authority that has public functions, such as Trinity House, and that is under way.
	If we were to accept this amendment now, we would effectively be pre-empting the outcome of the current consultation. The consultation must be allowed to run its course. Having made the case for bringing Trinity House within the scope of the Act, and in light of me having repeated and restated the points that my noble friend Lord McNally made to him in his letter last year, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Berkeley: Perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness about the length of the consultation period. The letter that I quoted from, dated 5 May 2011, from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said:
	"We are currently in the process of consulting the bodies concerned".
	It is very unusual for a government consultation to go on for nine months. Have the Government started another consultation? It is very good to have such long consultations, but it is a bit unusual. When is the consultation on the Trinity House issue going to finish? I would be very grateful for the noble Baroness's response.

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: We certainly plan to conclude the consultation fairly soon, and to bring an order under Section 5 for all the new public bodies that we are currently consulting on later in the year.

Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
	Amendment 56A withdrawn.
	Amendment 57 had been retabled as Amendment 57A.
	Amendment 57A
	 Moved by Lord McColl of Dulwich
	57A: After Clause 110, insert the following new Clause-
	"Legal advocate for child victim of human trafficking
	(1) It shall be a requirement that each child who might have been the victim of a human trafficking offence shall have a legal advocate appointed to represent the best interests of that child if the person who has parental responsibility fulfils any of the conditions set out in subsection (3).
	(2) The legal advocate shall have the following responsibilities-
	(a) to advocate that all decisions taken are in the child's best interest;
	(b) to advocate for the child to receive appropriate care, accommodation, medical treatment, including psychological assistance, education, translation and interpretation services;
	(c) to advocate for the child's access to legal and other representation where necessary;
	(d) to consult with, advise and keep the child victim informed of legal rights;
	(e) to contribute to identification of a plan to safeguard and promote the long-term welfare of the child based on an individual assessment of that child's best interests;
	(f) to keep the child informed of all relevant immigration, criminal or compensation proceedings;
	(g) to provide a link between the child and various organisations which may provide services to the child;
	(h) to assist in establishing contact with the child's family, where the child so wishes and it is in the child's best interests;
	(i) to attend all police interviews with the child; and
	(j) to accompany the child whenever the child moves to new accommodation.
	(3) Subsection (1) applies if the person who has parental responsibility for the child-
	(a) is suspected of taking part in a human trafficking offence;
	(b) has another conflict of interest with the child;
	(c) is not in contact with the child; or
	(d) is in a country outside the United Kingdom.
	(4) In subsection (1), a legal advocate may be-
	(a) an employee of a statutory body;
	(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or
	(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation.
	(5) Where a legal advocate is appointed under subsection (1), it shall be a requirement that any relevant agency recognises the authority of the legal advocate in relation to the child.
	(6) In subsection (5), a "relevant agency" means a person or organisation which-
	(a) provides services to the child; or
	(b) the child needs access to in relation to being a victim of a human trafficking offence.
	(7) The Secretary of State-
	(a) shall by order set out the arrangements for the appointment of a legal advocate;
	(b) may make rules about the training courses to be completed before a person may exercise functions as a legal advocate; and
	(c) shall by order designate organisations as a "recognised charitable organisation" for the purpose of this section.
	(8) In this section-
	"human trafficking offence" means an offence under section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (trafficking people for sexual exploitation) or an offence under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (trafficking people for labour and other exploitation); and
	"parental responsibility" has the same meaning as section 3 of the Children Act 1989."

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, Amendment 57A is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. These names demonstrate the widespread support across the House for what I believe is a very important amendment.
	On 25 November last year, during a debate on my trafficking Bill, one subject came up again and again: the plight of rescued trafficked children in the United Kingdom. Although my Bill is wide-ranging and touches on many different aspects of tackling trafficking, it was to this subject that speaker after speaker chose to return. At the very heart of the concern is the fact that the reports of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre demonstrate that between 2007 and February 2010, out of 942 trafficked children who were rescued in the United Kingdom, a staggering 301-one-third of the children-were lost. I understand and warmly welcome the fact that in the past year the loss rate fell to 18 per cent, but this is still a completely unacceptable situation.
	It brings to mind the small boy called Bao, who comes from Vietnam. When Bao's mother fell ill, the family needed to take a loan out to cover the cost of her healthcare. In return, Bao was told that he needed to come to the United Kingdom to work off the loan. Your Lordships can predict what happened on his arrival. Bao was initially forced to work as a domestic servant but later was moved to a cannabis factory, where he cultivated plants throughout the day and night.
	After a police raid, Bao was arrested and prosecuted for the offences that he had committed while under coercion from his traffickers. Although he was eventually identified as a victim of trafficking, he remained very fearful of those who had exploited him. Desperate to return to his family, Bao was devastated to learn about the threats his family were receiving in his home country shortly after his rescue. As a result, he became very frightened for their safety and disappeared from local authority care. Bao remains missing and is presumed to be back in the hands of his traffickers.
	This is the precise situation that Amendment 57A seeks to address. The reality of trafficked children is that they are extremely vulnerable and need appropriate and specialist support once rescued from their situation of exploitation. It is an incredibly sad reflection on our priorities as a nation that we should take such poor care of these extremely vulnerable children. First, they are kidnapped or lured under false pretences and trafficked to the United Kingdom, a foreign country with a foreign language, usually far away from their families. Then they are rescued and all too often while in local authority care they are lost, probably retrafficked. I find it hard to conceive that we are not doing more to help these children.
	It is important to be clear that Amendment 57A is not just about trying not to lose rescued trafficked children but about ensuring that they receive proper levels of care when they are not lost. In providing a constant reference point, the provision of a legal advocate will help address the distressing experience of these rescued children, who are passed from official to official, denied any sense of continuity and required to go back to the beginning and recount their painful story again and again. There are also accounts of children turning up to court and discovering that their social worker is not present. The provision of a legal advocate will mean that even if a social worker is not able to attend court, the child need not be alone.
	Of course, I am aware that the Government are concerned about this issue. However, they contend that the Children Act 1989 provides all the legal powers that are necessary to address this problem adequately. In the first instance, they point out that the Children Act places on local authorities a general obligation to protect the welfare of all children within their boundaries. The Act then makes provision for three relevant roles that can be called upon to assist a local authority as it seeks to rise to this challenge.
	First, Section 26 of the Children Act makes provision for assistance in the form of advocacy services for a child who makes or intends to make representations to a local authority either under their case review or on any issue in relation to their care by a local authority. Secondly, Section 23ZB requires local authorities to appoint "an independent person" who should,
	"visit, befriend and advise the child"
	if they think it is in the child's best interests. Thirdly, Section 25A requires local authorities to appoint an "independent reviewing officer" for each child in their care. These responsibilities are defined by Section 25B as providing independent oversight, including monitoring the performance of the local authority in respect of each child's case.
	However, there are at least two problems with the Government's suggestion that the provisions of the Children Act will suffice. First, the loss of 32 per cent of trafficked children occurring in the context of the Children Act and its provisions hardly suggests that the Act is fit for the purpose of protecting trafficked children. We would all recognise that their needs were not at the front of our minds in 1989 when the Act became law. Most of us had either never heard of the term "human trafficking" or were not aware of exactly what it meant.
	Secondly, while the provisions of the 1989 Act are very welcome, they fall a long way short of the definition of the recommended best practice in the care of rescued child trafficking victims; namely, the provision of a child trafficking guardian. A trafficking guardian is someone who is appointed as soon as the child is identified as a victim of trafficking with the intention that they should remain in place during the child's case and until a long-term solution is found that is in the child's best interests. The guardian would accompany the child to all meetings with officials, be they in law courts, regarding education or with social services, where crucially they would be recognised and would have the right to advocate on the child's behalf.
	There has been considerable confusion about the term guardian in the UK, partly because in our law the word "guardian" is generally used in the parental sense of parent or guardian, who is someone quite different. For that reason, I have given the role a different name in my amendment-namely, "legal advocate". However, to make what we are talking about really clear, the UNICEF guidelines on a child trafficking guardian are the basis of subsection (2) of the new clause proposed under Amendment 57A. There could then be no confusion about what is proposed.
	When we look at the internationally accepted definition of a guardian for a trafficked child, the shortcomings of the current Children Act provision become all too obvious. I will set them out briefly. First, Section 26 advocates do not comply with the definition of a trafficking guardian because they advocate on the child's behalf only in relation to local authority case reviews and are not appointed from the moment a child is identified as a victim of trafficking but only if the child determines that they would like to avail themselves of their services, which raises an interesting question.
	Last week, I spoke to a solicitor who pointed out that in making provisions for a Section 26 advocate, who crucially can be commissioned only if the child requests it, the Children Act assumes that the child in question is mature enough-probably 10 years old or more. The solicitor wanted to know how this would help the young trafficked children who had recently come to their attention: one was aged four months; one was one year old; and another was two years old. There are also "independent visitors" but they are not given the right to advocate on behalf of a child in all their engagement with the state. Instead, their role seems to be more of a befriending and advice service to the child in question.
	Finally, there is the independent reviewing officer but they do not appear to accompany the children anywhere and are not required to have direct contact with the child between their reviews. I do not believe that these positions adequately rise to the contemporary challenge of human trafficking. It is very clear to me that, even viewed collectively, these roles do not provide anything comparable to what is understood today as a child trafficking guardian. I am delighted that the Children Act has been amended over the past 20 years to make provision for the advocate, the independent visitor and the independent reviewing officer. But that fact shows that the law changes and adapts to new best practice, as I am advocating that it should today.
	Over the past several years, trafficking has become a lucrative business in the United Kingdom. Traffickers are clever and opportunistic, and stop at nothing when there is profit to be made. I think of a two year-old called Karolek who along with her mother was brought to the United Kingdom from eastern Europe and used as a means through which fraudulent benefits could be claimed. Both Karolek and her mother were rescued but her mother is now being groomed for sexual exploitation and is in no place to provide the best care for her child, leaving Karolek in a very vulnerable position. Had Karolek been given a legal advocate, the vulnerability of her situation would have been identified by someone with appropriate authority and action taken.
	In short, I must tell the House that I am not persuaded, on the basis of the 32 per cent loss rate, the levels of care or the careful scrutiny of current provisions in the Children Act, that our current arrangements are satisfactory. It is for that purpose that I am today moving Amendment 57A. It has been designed with two main considerations in mind. First, it addresses the shortcomings of our current legal provision by requiring the provision of a legal advocate from the moment a child victim of trafficking is identified. The legal advocate role is defined using the UNICEF framework for what guardians should do for the victims of child trafficking under subsection (2)(a) to (2)(j) of the proposed new clause.
	With these provisions in place, it is very much less likely that rescued trafficked children will be lost. Once rescued, they will have one consistent person advocating for their best interests and working to ensure a plan for their long-term welfare. While the child may have to deal with numerous officials, he or she will have the benefit of a focused and present point of contact and support who can advocate for the services that they need.
	Secondly, Amendment 57A rises to the key challenge very mindful of cost, which appeals to me as a Scot. If child trafficking guardians were required and the state was to pay for them, the total cost would be considerable. As a good Scotsman, I am very committed to the policies that seek to place our public finances on a firmer foundation than they have been in recent years. As a good Conservative, I am also very committed to the idea of the big society and the concept of the big society legal advocate, which has been advanced by various parliamentarians in another place.
	The truth is that charities and voluntary bodies are queuing up to make provision of the legal advocate role. They have been writing to me during the past week. Their frustration is that currently the law does not recognise them or enable them to play a proper child trafficking guardian role in the internationally recognised sense of the term and as reflected in the wording of my amendment.
	Mindful of this fact, my amendment, which is supported by eminent Peers from all sides of the House, deliberately states:
	"In subsection (1), a legal advocate may be-
	(a) an employee of a statutory body;(b) an employee of a recognised charitable organisation; or(c) a volunteer for a recognised charitable organisation".
	On the use of volunteers, I particularly underline the fact that, regardless of how one is appointed, this is no job for do-gooders with compassion but without proper training. Anyone serving as a legal advocate must be properly trained, be they paid or a volunteer. This is not incompatible with our traditions and is eloquently demonstrated not least by our volunteer magistrates system.
	I am not suggesting that this will have no cost implications, but they will be limited compared with an alternative that is funded completely from the public purse. Furthermore, when one has regard to the cost to the state resulting from children going missing and the potential for ensuring that a child has good support through any criminal cases brought against traffickers, one can see that it constitutes an extremely good investment and excellent value for money. Amendment 57A presents a win-win opportunity. I beg to move.

Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient if I briefly intervene at this stage. It might save some time later. It is certainly within the scope of the guidance in the Companion to Standing Orders if I speak now, but I assure my noble friends that obviously I will respond as Minister at the end of the debate.
	I want to make one brief point to my noble friend. We have all listened carefully to his words and they have made a deep impact on us. Although these matters fall slightly outside my immediate area of responsibility within the Home Office, I am certainly content to ask colleagues in the Department for Education to invite the Children's Commissioner for England to review the current practical arrangements for rescued child victims of trafficking and to provide advice both to my right honourable friend in that department and to us in the Home Office. We will then be in a position to come back to these matters at a later stage.
	I hope, with that assurance-I repeat that I am prepared to respond at the end of this debate-that my words might at least reduce the amount of time that we need to devote to this debate when there is a lot of other business to be taken this evening.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that short and welcome intervention, but my real tribute must go to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his tireless efforts on this issue and his splendid introduction to the amendment. It is said that a society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members, and the children who have entered our shores to work in modern-day slavery are truly some of the most vulnerable in our society. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been an extraordinary advocate for all those who have been trafficked, but especially children. We all must have found the ages of the children mentioned this evening deeply shocking.
	As the noble Lord said in the debate held earlier this month, the UK should be striving to be a beacon of good practice in this area, not simply doing the minimum to toe the line. When children are trafficked into this country, they often arrive alone and without any trace of where they have come from, with no way to communicate and without anyone who cares for their best interest. The lucky children will be picked up at the border, but others become known to the authorities only many months and sometimes years after entering the country, having been forced into prostitution or slave labour by their traffickers. Those children who are identified will come into contact with scores of extremely dedicated professionals-border agency staff, the police, social services, foster carers and lawyers-all of whom will have partial responsibility for their care, yet no single adult will have responsibility for providing advocacy for a child in all those situations.
	The purpose of a guardian or a legal advocate is, as termed in this amendment, to mediate between all the different agencies on behalf of the child and to provide the continuous oversight and physical presence that they need while navigating the process. As the noble Lord said, between 2005 and 2009 32 per cent of child trafficking victims went missing from care. As a citizen, I am ashamed of that. Child victims of human trafficking need highly specialised protection because of the nature of the criminal world that we are dealing with. Human trafficking has a net value of $36 billion a year, with human lives as its commodity, and organised criminal groups will go to terrible lengths to abduct a child from care. Articles 14 and 16 of the EU directive require member states to implement measures that are tailored to the specific vulnerabilities of these children. The appointment of a guardian or legal advocate as described in the amendment would ensure that the UK is fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of the directive in providing the child with a legal advocate who will provide advocacy for that child from the moment they are identified both in dealings with authorities and in court.
	I hear what the Minister says and I am glad that the Government are now going to pursue these issues further with the Children's Commissioner, because I can think of no better person who can really push these issues forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to keep us informed of progress as the discussions take place, and of course I trust him to do that. However, I have to say that I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will pursue these issues doggedly until he is satisfied that every child who is trafficked into this country has a legal advocate. I am confident that the issue will be pursued to its successful conclusion.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, I, too, have put my name to this amendment. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for this amendment and for the dedication with which he has pursued both through his own Bill and during the passage of this Bill what is so needed for these children.
	The amendment looks to one element of the needs of the most disadvantaged group of children in the world: those who have been trafficked, removed from their families, however inadequate the family situation may have been, and brought here, to a foreign country, where they probably do not speak the language, to become sex slaves, domestic slaves, thieves or minders of cannabis farms. As the noble Lord has told us, they have no family life, no chance to go to school or to lead the life of an ordinary child. This is modern child slavery, and how do we treat those who escape? The signing of the EU directive and the excellent strategy against human trafficking have put the Government on the right track. The issue is the extent to which the good intentions are actually carried out. I suggest that the United Kingdom is only semi-compliant with the directive, but we are all on the same side in trying to achieve the best possible outcomes for these children. I was delighted to hear the preliminary and most helpful comments from the Minister, but none the less I would like to continue to make the speech I have prepared.
	Article 14 of the directive was set out by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, but how do we deal with it in England and Wales? As the noble Lord said, the care and protection of these children is covered by the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004. Local authorities have a statutory duty of care, protection and accommodation to children at risk. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the present set-up within social work care does not meet the needs of the trafficked child. At present, no one in this country has parental responsibility for such a child. Mothers and fathers have parental responsibility, and local authorities share parental responsibility if they have a care order, but under Part III of the Children Act 1989, not Part IV, parental responsibility remains with the parents, who may be anywhere in the world and may themselves have been the traffickers; so the child is in a sort of administrative limbo.
	We know, as the noble Lord pointed out so graphically, that traffickers get in touch with children who go missing-and no one actually knows how many children do go missing. The figures on missing children generally, those within the UK as well as trafficked children, are seriously inaccurate. There is no effective trafficking database, but the figures given today, although I would be surprised if they are the total, are indeed shocking. Those children who remain with a local authority have no consistent person to whom to turn. They are exposed and subjected to a bewildering variety of processes over which they have no control with no consistent individual to help them surmount the hurdles set before them.
	I also remind noble Lords that these are foreign children who do not necessarily speak English and have no one in this country with parental responsibility or who they know. One only has to contrast such a child with a child living in this country who comes to the threshold of care proceedings as being "at serious risk of harm". That child is always allocated a guardian for care proceedings, usually from CAFCASS. The amendment seeks to ameliorate this sad and most unsatisfactory situation.
	I have to say, however, that the wording of the amendment is not perfect. The phrase "legal advocate", which I am afraid I suggested, may not be the best phrase. It is difficult to work out the best description of a person who should carry out the tasks, but the tasks themselves are much clearer. The person needs to be a mentor, a next friend and adviser to the child, and we have to find the best title for the individual carrying out this role. What we need for the trafficked child is someone who will be around at the end of the phone, will meet the child, will know when the child goes missing and will alert the agencies to find them. The person would help to arrange all the services needed by the child-medical, psychological, educational and interpretation into the child's own language-and assist in the child's access to legal and other representation. The person would advise the child and help to promote their best interests, and make long-term plans for their future. Ideally, the person identified should have parental responsibility for the child or at least some statutory authority, so that the agencies with which that person will deal would be obliged to pay attention to his or her intervention. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, quite rightly said, some training will be necessary. The untrained amateur is not the person for this job.
	An unsatisfactory alternative is to continue to use social workers to carry out this role. It is not often that there will be one social worker with the time, or even possibly the commitment, to give this child what is needed. I know from personal experience what social workers cannot do for children living in this country, so how will they be able to do it for trafficked children coming in? Ideally, the resources should be given to free up individual social workers to look after the relatively small number of identified trafficked children, but this is pie in the sky.
	The Salvation Army has a contract to provide help and accommodation for adults, but not, of course, for children. A real possibility would be for the Government to look to the voluntary sector and find a children's NGO to provide this service for these children. As an example, Barnardo's already offers legal advocates for trafficked children in certain circumstances and gives other help. I believe that CARE is about to offer something similar, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, spoke of a number of NGOs which had been in touch with him.
	I would like the Government to look to the NGOs to see what could be offered, to which I hope the Government would make a modest contribution to help the relevant NGO carry out the task. I hope that the Children's Commissioner for England will look at that, and I am delighted that the Minister has accepted this proposal from the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I very much hope, therefore-and I feel it is true-that the Government accept the underlying principle of this important amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and his co-signatories, as well as the organisations which have clearly done so much of the work of which we have heard. I commend them for ensuring that so many of your Lordships have been lobbied, which has led to an increasing understanding of the complexities of trafficking and the response to it.
	In view of the Minister's remarks, I shall cut down what I have to say this evening. What is needed for children in this situation is so multifaceted that the proposal for guardianship, if I can call it that, is appropriate, particularly because of the ability that such a person would have to look at the child's interests as a whole and not as a series of separate issues with too much demarcation and not enough interconnection. What is also needed is somebody able to give time to the child. Adults who are trafficked can take a lot of time to articulate their feelings, their needs and their story. If that is so for them, how much time is needed for children?
	Social workers-like the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I do not criticise individual social workers-may be seen as representatives of the state by some children. Consistency and trust have also been referred to. Speaking more from instinct than knowledge, I rather doubt that all local authority children's services can have as deep an understanding as is needed of the complexity of this problem. I would like to see more psychological services and a focus on specialised and supported foster care. Foster parents looking after trafficked children who have been rescued must have a hugely important role. If the reason for so many children missing from care is in part the bond that they have with their traffickers, who will be the people that they know best, whose language they may speak and who may well have taken steps to ensure that the child stays in contact, or if it is a matter of fear, voodoo and witchcraft, work needs to be done to counter that relationship. So we are talking about a range of actions, and this proposition addresses a lot of the issues.
	In giving assurances to the House about how the Government hope to take this matter forward, the Minister referred to practical arrangements. I am sure that he did not mean to limit what would be looked at by the Children's Commissioner to practical arrangements because what is needed goes far wider than that. I appreciate that an enormous amount of negotiation must underlie the assurance today, so I do not want to push him into a place which is difficult for him, but if he can say anything about that, it would be helpful. Perhaps he could say something also about the work that might be done with the Children's Commissioner for Wales, where a lot of work in this area has been done and where different arrangements perhaps apply.

The Archbishop of York: My Lords-

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords-

Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is traditional to allow the Bishops to go first.

The Archbishop of York: My Lords, I most warmly support the amendment and welcome the tripartite negotiations announced by the Minister. I hope that speed will be of the essence and that we shall be informed of the outcome before Third Reading. I hope that he will not simply say, "Further negotiations are going on. We hope to make some practical arrangements". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will not let go of the matter and will keep an eagle eye on the negotiations.
	The objective of the Bill-the protection of freedoms -is deficient unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, it protects the freedoms and interests of the most vulnerable members of society. It is hard to think of a more vulnerable group than children who have been trafficked. It is bad enough imagining the distress of an adult who arrives in a foreign country alone and oppressed and has to contend with traffickers, the immigration authorities and the police. How much more traumatic and inhibiting it must be for a child to face the same challenge.
	In this situation, children need to be supported and represented so that their best interests are safeguarded. The issue at stake is whether we rest content with minimal provision, as required by the EU directive, or whether we seek an effective and properly resourced system of advocacy. I for one would go for the latter: a better system of advocacy for the children. I do not find the phrase "legal advocate" difficult. "Guardian" would be quite difficult to understand, but I can see what a "legal advocate" might do. However, other people may think differently.
	Our recent performance in losing 32 per cent of trafficked children in local authority care between 2007 and 2010 suggests that we need to raise our game. How can so many be lost? It is too huge a loss. We should seek a better way, as outlined in the UNICEF definition of the role of a guardian and the standards set out in the various international instruments.
	The amendment offers us that better way. The provisions of the Children Act 1989 are good as far as they go, but they do not meet the special requirements of children who have been trafficked. The noble Lord's amendment sets out the duties of a legal advocate with admirable clarity and provides for suitably qualified and trained people to fill that role. It has the advantage, by drawing on employees of statutory organisations or volunteers with specialist NGOs, of keeping extra costs down.
	I am grateful, too, for Amendment 57A, because there was a fear, generated in the margins of your Lordships' House, that Amendment 57 would provide an incentive for opportunistic and misguided parents to traffick their own children in order to gain entry into the United Kingdom. There was that fear and the new amendment deals with that. Again, I do not know on what evidence that fear rested, but for me it would still be wrong to fail to provide support for genuine child victims simply out of fear that unscrupulous parents might take advantage of the provision.
	To return to Amendment 57A, I am personally not convinced of the Government's argument that the status quo is good enough. I do not think that it is. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and his supporters have given us an opportunity to remedy a serious gap in our provision for victims of trafficking, particularly children. I thank him for that and urge that we seize the opportunity with both hands. I am grateful for the consultation that will take place. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will not kick it into the long grass.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment so comprehensively and competently set out by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
	I do not want to put the Minister in an embarrassing position. I know that he supports issues on trafficking because he has responded very sympathetically to previous debates. I agree that the Children's Commissioner is a good person to handle this, but I would like to be assured that there will be specific terms of reference, with possible extra resourcing. The commissioner must be able to draw on the expertise of organisations such Barnardo's, UNICEF, and CARE that have done so much research on this issue. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York mentioned the long grass in his closing remarks. I always fear long grass when we have reviews and I would not want this to go into the long grass in any respect.
	Your Lordships' House has debated and been concerned about the trafficking of children for many years. Indeed, there have been relevant debates quite recently, including the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the debate of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. The Minister responded sympathetically. I also recognise that much has been done by the local safeguarding boards, NGOs and the police in response to accommodation support, safety and employment needs. But I want to dwell for a moment, and I shall be brief, on the appalling state that trafficked young people find themselves in and why they need such support.
	I declare an interest as a patron of the University of Bedfordshire child protection unit. In that capacity, I have met many young people who have been trafficked and who can and do set out their problems passionately. The concerns are well documented in the ECPAT booklet called Safeguarding Children: Top Ten Questions on Child Trafficking. One of the key issues that has been pointed out by other organisations such as CARE, Barnardo's and UNICEF, is that children who are trafficked are,
	"already vulnerable because of poverty, lack of education, few job opportunities or the loss of family support".
	I will return to that because it is a key issue. These children are likely to go missing, although I understand the figure has improved. They are certainly vulnerable to abuse and subject to abuse very regularly. Most have language and communication difficulties.
	Of course they need support and advocacy as they are in a system that is too complex for them to understand. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends the prompt appointment of a guardian for unaccompanied children and says succinctly what such a person should do. Such a person should be consulted and informed about actions relevant to the child, have the authority to represent the child when plans or decisions are made, have expertise in childcare so as to protect the best interests of the child, act as a link between specialist agencies or individuals and provide continuity of care.
	I want to emphasise the point that so many noble Lords have already emphasised. It is very important that such an advocate, guardian or mentor must have training and expertise in dealing with children and their vulnerabilities. This requires training not just in systems but with vulnerable young people. We all know how difficult it sometimes is to deal with children who have not been trafficked. How much more difficult is it to deal with children who are in such appalling circumstances? I emphasise the issue of training and suitability for the people who want to support these children.
	UNICEF has produced a similar list of 12 expectations on the role of guardians, including keeping the child informed of rights and any proceedings undertaken. Care points out that while the Government may maintain that the role of guardian is adequately filled by existing arrangements, current social work provisions via local authority care, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said, fall short of the care that is needed. Apparently, in some cases, appointed social workers have not shown up to children's court proceedings. I have enormous respect for social workers, but they cannot do everything. The situation is far from ideal. We know that social workers and CAFCASS are overwhelmed with needy cases. Surely these trafficked children need more support and our sympathy.
	I am sure that the Children's Commissioner and her office will take this on board but my key point is that child victims of trafficking have multiple needs. It is not just about preventing them from disappearing. There are immigration issues, emotional and psychological trauma, absence of parents and other support. All that points to the need for a person who can get to know the child as an individual, can cope with the trauma, is familiar with the legal and social care systems and is trusted and respected by the child. A guardian or mentor is such a person. I look forward to the Minister's response on this and to more information if possible on the role of the Children's Commissioner.

Lord Wei: My Lords, I very much welcome Amendment 57A and the announcement by the Minister, which is a positive step in the right direction. In light of that, I want primarily to direct my comments to the scope that the amendment provides for the use of volunteers.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, supported across the whole House, is important. The voluntary legal advocate whom he proposes does not complicate matters by introducing additional bureaucratic burdens on the child. They would simply provide a means of helping all the things that must already be done to be done. They would provide additional capacity to provide more support for the child and the reassurance that there is one person who will help them who will remain constant so that they do not have the emotional trauma of going back to square one to explain their painful story all over again.
	The legal advocate would be able to provide general advice and support and crucially be permitted to accompany them on all their interactions with state agencies and act as advocate to all those agencies on the child's behalf. That is based on internationally accepted best practice as set out by UNICEF.
	One of the most important parts of the McColl amendment is that it does not tie the Government's hands but provides scope for legal advocates to be the employees of statutory bodies, voluntary organisations or volunteers with voluntary organisations. The opportunity for using the voluntary sector and volunteers, as has been mentioned before, is hugely significant.
	The number of children rescued between 2007 and 2010 is roughly 300 a year. I know from my work in the voluntary sector that it would not be difficult to find 300 volunteers a year to be voluntary legal advocates for a child. Indeed, I have been approached, as have other noble Lords, by voluntary organisations that are ready to rise to the challenge and pilot such approaches. This presents us with a win-win situation, because not only does it address a very pressing problem, but it would do so in a way that would help further build British social capital.
	I am aware that there are those who may feel nervous about the role of volunteers. In response, I make two key points. First, the amendment is keenly aware that anyone serving those deeply vulnerable children must be properly trained, as has been mentioned already, and all would be subject to the same robust training framework. This is no place for some well meaning volunteer who just feels compassion but who has not been properly trained. Secondly, I would simply point those tempted to suggest that volunteers cannot do the job to our magistrates system. Magistrates are volunteers. They are properly trained and have to deal with very sensitive situations. Although there may be some who are defensive of their turf and tempted to justify their fears of volunteers by pointing to training, we must recognise that volunteers can be, and are, trained, as our magistrates system eloquently demonstrates. Another great example of the very successful use of volunteers to which I would direct noble Lords is that provided by court-appointed special advocates-CASAs-in the United States, who are trained volunteers and who have a proven track record of dealing with extremely delicate situations very effectively.
	Of course the opportunity to make proper care available for victims of trafficking through volunteer legal advocates is hugely important in the current fiscal environment, where money is so tight. This is not to say that Amendment 57A would have no costs to the state if the volunteer route were used, but it would be minimal-and money well spent when one has regard for the imperative of providing better and more sensitive care for incredibly vulnerable children and for further reductions in the numbers lost.
	My political hero is Anthony Ashley Cooper, the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, who arguably did more than anyone else in this House-and in another place and beyond-to establish the tradition of compassionate conservatism in the 19th century, demonstrating concern particularly for vulnerable children in factories and mines and for those sweeping chimneys. I am sure that if he were here today, he would be fronting this amendment, which comes in the very best tradition of my party, historically and recently; and which, crucially, also resonates with the traditions of other parties, whether your vision of society is big, open, good or otherwise. I very much hope that we can continue to support the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in his efforts to secure these measures.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am one of those who want to speak in the next debate, and I can see the Minister glaring at me. However, it is particularly important, numerically, that we support what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and indeed my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, have said. It is crucial that we get this right. I am not going to spend hours adding my thoughts to it but do just want to make one point. Not only is the number who have slipped through the net shameful-and it is really shameful-but we are facing a rather more difficult and dangerous period. There is a lot of money to be made in this area, as noble Lords have said, and we are just about to enter the Olympic period. I want to make that one point. I hope everybody who wants to speak is going to be heard, because this is a crucially important matter that we must get right. I have great confidence that the Minister will take note of what is being said. The amendment is not perfect, as everybody has said, but what is behind is crucial.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I welcome this amendment and commend it most strongly to the Government. I am also glad to hear the Minister's indication that the Government are going to look sympathetically and positively at what the amendment says and what lies behind it. I will make a couple of points. First, it is particularly significant that the amendment stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. The noble Lord is not a man who indulges just in rhetoric-his humanitarian commitment is demonstrated in his own direct work, for example in west Africa. When somebody with practical demonstration of human concern speaks out, it is always doubly important to listen. The noble Lord and the other supporters of this amendment have of course spoken up for civilised values and are trying to give some substance to what we like to say this society is about-what we believe the England, or the United Kingdom, we want to live in is about, when it comes to a pressing social issue. By putting the amendment forward so well, it seems to me that they have also endeavoured to give substance to the commitment that we gave before the world when the conventions were being drawn up. It is not just about what the conventions demand-we were speaking up positively in favour of the conventions. It is therefore particularly disgraceful when we have situations that contradict what those conventions say.
	I want to say one other thing. Very recently, we were celebrating Charles Dickens's 200th anniversary. I have absolutely no doubt whatever that, had Dickens lived today, he would have been writing powerfully about this story. My noble friend Lady Massey has spelt out the realities. Of course, another reality is the damage that is done to the future lives of children in this predicament-the potential delinquency and all that follows from that; the potential recruitment to ugly causes that could easily arise from experiences of this kind.
	Most important of all, we talk about the need for expertise and people with knowledge of the law who will be able to find practical solutions because they are professionally qualified to do so. That is crucial, and we do not want to go down the road of sentimentality; but at the same time, what would Dickens have brought out? Dickens would have brought out that child's loneliness and isolation when faced with all the awe of the legal system and the immigration administration, however well intentioned the people within it might be. Dickens would have brought out that that child desperately needed a friend-it is not just expertise they need, but friendship to help them build their lives and future. They need love. Why do we, in this House, always hold back from talking about the importance-the muscular importance-of love in our society? Those children need love.
	However, for love to be effective, it must be backed by serious work and commitment, from people with serious and relevant qualifications bringing them to bear. We will not find a solution simply by good, decent, administrative intent; we will find it by the quality of the relationships. In speaking out as I do on this point, it should be stressed over and over again that this is not just a matter of the responsibility of the immigration or other authorities, it is our whole society's responsibility. Dickens would have wanted to wake up the nation, as a community, to the reality of the situation in its midst. There has to be an awakening of social and public responsibility across this land, if we are to find the real and lasting solutions to not just this issue but to all the issues of which this is a particularly acute symptom. I, for example, would love for this amendment to have gone a little further. I do not think it would have been practicable in this context but, perhaps at some stage the amendment could be taken forward to include all children in the immigration system who find themselves alone, not just the children who are victims of trafficking.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: The Minister's reply to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and others has been most warmly welcomed. When he examines this, will he put his mind to the further thought that trafficked children are highly likely to be retrafficked? This splendid amendment has an underlying assumption that somehow the children will be safe forever once they are here and there is a legal guardian and a framework around them. Of course, that is not the case. Trafficked children are hugely vulnerable. Naturally, there is a point in this amendment that locates their parents again and very probably, in most cases, an effort will be made to restore them to those parents. However, the volume of children who are retrafficked is dramatic and appalling. When they consider this amendment in such a positive light, I wonder whether the Minister and indeed the department will think about trying to stop the trafficking at source.
	I declare an interest as president of a charity registered in Romania, which has been working against traffickers in Romania for 20 years. There is a great deal that we from this country can do for other developed nations, including Romania which is the subject of all sorts of trafficked children from Moldova, Russia and China. They pour through rather large and porous borders, and many of those children end up here. Vast numbers of them are then retrafficked.
	I wonder whether the Minister could consider the next step of putting a great deal of focus on how to strengthen at source the anti-trafficking barriers. In fact, a predecessor of the Minister loaned some senior police from Scotland Yard for a short time to work in situ on providing training. That made a huge difference. We may do everything we possibly can for children who arrive here, but they will be rotated again and come back unless we take some measures to stop the trafficking at source.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I greatly applaud and welcome this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and its other signatories. I also appreciate very much the humanity and sensitivity shown by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, if I may say so, has added to the very great respect and admiration that the House already has for him. The problem is one which is a stain upon the honour of this community. These trafficked children are the most vulnerable imaginable, while their state is the most pitiable imaginable-and yet our system fails them. Morally, our responsibility is immense and could not be greater. Legally, the responsibility has already been spelt out. As many of us know, in Part III of the Children Act 1989 there is Section 17, which requires a local authority to be responsible for a child in need, and Section 20, which requires it to accommodate a child who needs accommodation.
	If I may turn to the Welsh language for a moment, there is a saying: "Dyw mater pawb yn gyfrifoldeb neb"-the business of everybody is nobody's special responsibility-and that is the whole issue here. Somehow or other local authorities, which I know have responded well within the realities of the difficulties which they have, find it difficult to do exactly what they should in relation to these children, with the result that a very substantial proportion escape the protection which they so gravely need. In those circumstances, I believe that the amendment is excellent. It concentrates the mind, as Dr Johnson might have said. It places a focus of responsibility which is not already there in Part III of that Children Act.
	It may be that the amendment is not perfect. That does not really matter, as its thrust is obvious and honourable. I had the very great privilege 43 years ago, if your Lordships can believe it, of taking the Children and Young Persons Bill through another place. I remember being thrilled then by one of the expressions in that legislation, about the responsibility of a local authority towards a child who was in its care to befriend. We have heard that expression already, but I do not think that it appears in fact in the amendment. However, I am sure that it could be incorporated in legislation in this context. I therefore feel that we are doing something which is essentially moral and good. We are supplementing a lacuna which exists not so much in the law as in the way in which local authorities have reacted to their duties in this case. It is very much to the credit of this community that it shows that sensitivity in relation to what is a very worthy cause.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, I am very aware that those who push against an open door are liable to fall on their face. I suppose the trouble here is that we do not know how open the door is, given the assurance that the Minister made. However, having regard to the way he responded so humanely to the Second Reading of the Bill brought by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on 25 November and the amendments that the Government have subsequently made, we can be confident that he will be doing his very best concerning this evil practice and to ensure that the real needs of this vulnerable section will be adequately met. We give two cheers at the moment-we hope that there will be three cheers-but I suppose that there is a problem in how the report of the Children's Commissioner will be put into legislation, given that it will presumably be received well after this Parliament has ended. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point.
	I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Judd, has shown his own compassion in West Africa by his presidency of Mercy Ships. He has indeed shown himself to be committed and flexible; for example, he has listened to concerns about the former subsection (1)(c), which in my judgment could certainly have been misused for illegal immigration. The key point in subsection (1) is that the main consideration is the welfare of the child. There is no doubt about the nature of the problem. They are bewildered, vulnerable children. The Children's Commissioner's report of last month, Landing in Dover, shows some of the failings of the current system. I am sure the Minister concedes that that system is far from adequate. We need to confront it. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has put forward a proposal that might help the Minister in terms of public funds. It may be that local social services departments can provide adequate help but, if not, the voluntary spirit will be available, as the noble Lord, Lord Wei, said.
	Clearly, there are concerns about the potential volunteers. Is the problem manageable? I submit that it is, given the relatively small number of children who are trafficked. Equally, there must be some concerns about the adequacy of the training. I do not wholly accept the precedent of magistrates. Yes, magistrates are amateur, but they have training and the legal clerk is always there to advise them on the law. The volunteers, it is said, are available and there is a great spirit on the part of non-governmental organisations to be ready to help. I hope that the training will indeed be adequate. Of course many social workers do not in any event have specialist training in this field.
	That said, we travel in hope. I believe that the Government and indeed the noble Lord, Lord McColl, whom I congratulate again, have set out proper criteria based on the UNICEF guidance. I believe also that Greco -the Council of Europe organisation which is going to mark the Government in terms of their adherence to the obligations under the Council of Europe convention-is more likely to give a very positive report when it comes to comment on the Government's conduct in May or June of this year.

Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I will not delay the House for more than a moment. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak during the passage of the Bill, and I want to add a factual point that may be of use in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
	I had the honour of succeeding the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, as president of UNICEF. In that capacity I spent seven years travelling to all parts of the world, looking at the issue of child trafficking, and was forced to witness things that would have beggared the imagination of Charles Dickens. One important point kept coming back: when I was moved at times to begin to lecture areas of the world where the situation was particularly bad, they always responded, quite correctly, by saying, "Look at your own situation". The situation in the UK is actually very poor, and it ill behoves us to tell the rest of the world what it should be doing about child trafficking until we can be sure that our own record is as close to immaculate as legislation can make it. I was frequently extremely embarrassed by being lectured back about the UK's record on child trafficking in places where I had thought that we had the moral high ground. We lost the moral high ground a number of years ago.
	I harangued my own Government any number of times on this issue and eventually we got a signature to the UN Convention, but the situation needs improvement, and quickly. We have very little to be proud of, and I was hoping that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would go a long way towards allowing us to begin to tell the rest of the world how to put their house in order.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the House will now allow me to respond to the long debate that we have had on this subject. There are a few points that I want to make.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, was rather suspicious that I might be trying to kick this into the long grass-she put that suggestion forward. I assure her that I have some experience of kicking things into the long grass, but that works only when all parties agree that something should go into the long grass and stay there. If I may continue with the analogy, it was her noble friend Lady Royall who asked that I keep her informed of progress while giving me the assurance that my noble friend Lord McColl would be dogged in his pursuit of me to ensure that things progressed. When someone like my noble friend is dogged in his pursuit, there is no grass long enough for these matters. This issue will not go into the long grass, as I said; I want this to go to the Children's Commissioner for her to give her views and come forward with practical ideas.
	On that point, I would like to come back to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who herself was rather suspicious when I used the expression "practical arrangements". I have no shame whatever in using those words because they are exactly what we want. We want to ensure that we are making progress in this area, rather than merely passing amendments so that we feel good about passing amendments.
	I do not want to go into the amendment of my noble friend Lord McColl at this stage because I do not think it quite achieves what it sets out to do and there might be better ways of doing it. I repeat what I said to him earlier today in a private conversation: we have made some progress in this area. Noble Lords have been quoting the figure of some 32 per cent of children still being lost, but we have had considerable progress over the past few years. The 32 per cent figure was an average over the past four or five years, but actually it has dropped from a quite horrifying 55 per cent to 18 per cent, which is an equally horrifying figure but that at least is progress in the right direction. I pay tribute to some local authorities, and there are not many good ones, that have been performing their duties very well. I also pay tribute, as did my noble friend Lord Attlee in the recent debate moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, to the work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which I visited recently. Progress is being made in this area and we should not think that primary legislation or whatever-there will be opportunities for both primary and secondary legislation-is necessarily the only solution.
	At this stage I would like to say that we have made progress, I have listened to everything that has been said and the Children's Commissioner will take note of all that has been said in this debate. I look forward to progress and to keeping the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, informed about it. I will also look over my shoulder for the dogged pursuit of my noble friend Lord McColl, who will see to it that I do my utmost to ensure that progress is made in this respect. I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful to my co-signatories, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Carlile. I am also grateful to the Minister for the assurances and the concession that he has given, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 57A withdrawn.
	Schedule 9 : Consequential amendments
	Amendments 58 to 67
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	58: Schedule 9, page 179, line 37, at end insert-
	"In section 113A (criminal record certificates) omit subsection (10).
	In section 113B (enhanced criminal record certificates) omit subsection (13)."
	59: Schedule 9, page 182, line 25, leave out "7(1)(i) or (j)" and insert "7(1)(f) or (g)"
	60: Schedule 9, page 182, line 38, leave out "for "will" substitute "may"" and insert "after "will" insert "or (as the case may be) may"."
	61: Schedule 9, page 185, line 17, leave out "for "will" substitute "may"" and insert "after "will" insert "or (as the case may be) may"."
	62: Schedule 9, page 185, line 36, leave out "and 120AC" and insert ", 120AC and 120AD"
	63: Schedule 9, page 186, line 3, leave out "and 120AC" and insert ", 120AC and 120AD"
	64: Schedule 9, page 187, line 7, at end insert-
	"( ) After subsection (2) insert-
	"(2A) Where, in connection with the provision of up-date information under section 116A, the chief officer of a police force receives a request for information of the kind mentioned in section 113B(4), the chief officer of police must comply with it as soon as practicable.""
	65: Schedule 9, page 188, line 14, at end insert ", 120AC(1) or 120AD(2)"
	66: Schedule 9, page 188, line 17, leave out "or 120AC(1)" and insert ", 120AC(1) or 120AD(2)"
	67: Schedule 9, page 188, line 23, at end insert "or 120AD"
	Amendments 58 to 67 agreed.
	Schedule 10 : Repeals and revocations
	Amendments 68 and 69
	 Moved by Lord Henley
	68: Schedule 10, page 196, line 36, column 2, at beginning insert-
	
		
			  "Section 113A(10). 
			  Section 113B(13)." 
		
	
	69: Schedule 10, page 203, line 5, at end insert-
	
		
			 "Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1146). Regulation 4(2). 
			  Regulation 8." 
		
	
	Amendments 68 and 69 agreed.
	Clause 114 : Commencement
	Amendment 70
	 Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston
	70: Clause 114, page 100, line 42, after "Part 1" insert "and any Welsh provision"

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it are all minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
	Amendment 70 agreed.
	Amendments 71 to 74
	 Moved by Baroness Stowell of Beeston:
	71: Clause 114, page 100, line 42, at end insert-
	"(2) The Welsh Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any Welsh provision.
	(3) In this section "Welsh provision" means any provision of this Act so far as it falls within section 118(3)."
	72: Clause 117, page 102, line 2, after "1997" insert "(excluding sections 113A(10) and 113B(13) of that Act)"
	73: Clause 117, page 102, line 41, leave out "116" and insert "115"
	74: Clause 117, page 103, line 3, leave out subsection (9)
	Amendments 71 to 74 agreed.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Bill Main page

Committee (10th Day)

Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Constitution Committee, 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 21st and 22nd Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee.
	Amendment 182A
	 Moved by Baroness Gould of Potternewton
	182A: After Clause 120, insert the following new Clause-
	"Women's Justice Strategy Commission
	(1) There shall be body known as the Women's Justice Strategy Commission for England and Wales ("the Commission").
	(2) The Commission shall consist of no less than 10 and no more than 20 members appointed by the Secretary of State.
	(3) The members of the Commission-
	(a) shall include persons representative of government departments and public bodies whose responsibilities have relevance to the treatment of female offenders and the prevention of offending by women (including, but not limited to, responsibilities for criminal justice, housing, education, employment, benefits, social services and health services), and
	(b) shall work with specialists who have the experience and knowledge to provide the necessary expert advice.
	(4) The Commission shall have the following functions, namely-
	(a) to develop a strategy to reduce offending by women and for the delivery of appropriate and effective services to women in the criminal justice system,
	(b) to monitor the extent to which the aims of that strategy are being met,
	(c) to set standards with respect to the specification, commissioning and provision of services to women in the criminal justice system and services to reduce offending by women,
	(d) to make grants, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to bodies to enable them to develop good practice in the provision of services to women in the criminal justice system and the prevention of offending by women.
	(5) The Commission shall provide an annual report to Parliament relating to its discharge of the functions specified in subsection (4)."

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, 19 years ago I was proud to make my maiden speech on women in the criminal justice system. In that speech I highlighted the disproportionate and discriminatory response of our justice system to women offenders. I spoke of the complex needs of women offenders and the fact that many women are locked up on short sentences for petty crime, causing untold destruction to their families. I spoke about how the prison system does not do what it should for women offenders, and how we must look at more effective ways of tackling women's offending behaviour in the community.
	Since I made that speech, a number of high-profile reviews of women in the criminal justice system have been published and recommendations have been taken on board by successive Governments. Still, though, the problem of women in prison pervades; 15 years ago there were some 1,800 women in custody but today there are over 4,000. In 2007 my noble friend Lady Corston-at this point I must give her apologies; she has had to leave for family reasons at this late hour-produced a compelling review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. The Corston report highlighted the specialised and specific needs of women offenders that are being wholly neglected in a justice system designed for men, even though the complex and multiple needs of women offenders and women at risk of offending are well documented. Domestic and sexual violence, poverty, mental illness, problematic substance misuse and homelessness are just some of the issues facing many women offenders. Often when they go into jail there are dire consequences.
	I remember listening to the male governor of Styal women's prison, who had spent his career in men's prisons, talking about his experience of arriving at Styal. He spoke of how shocked he was at the levels of self-harm. He described how in a male prison there was an average of six prisoners on special observation for self-harm each day, while in Styal it was an average of 50. He described the high levels of mental health problems and the fact most women were there on short sentences, some women for eight days or even less. I remember his words: "I've never seen such a concentration of damaged, fragile people". In this weekend's Sunday papers, he reiterated that statement, which he made a few months ago.
	When women are sentenced to custody, that has a profound effect on family life. Many women have children or elderly or disabled dependants. Each year, 18,000 children are separated from their mothers by imprisonment, and just 5 per cent of those children will get to stay in their homes when their mother goes to jail. In 2006, the Social Exclusion Unit found that only half the women in prison who lived with or had contact with their children prior to imprisonment had received a visit from their children since going to prison. Sending women to prison is also, for the most part, ineffective. Two-thirds of women serving sentences of 12 months or less are reconvicted within a year of release. The impact on the children of those women cannot truly be imagined, but we know that it is dramatic.
	We conclude, as I concluded in my speech 19 years ago, that our current approach to women in the criminal justice system is not working. At this point, I declare an interest as patron of the women's centre in Brighton and Hove, which provides an excellent example of cost-effective treatment of women offenders in the community that works. The Inspire project is a partnership between five women's organisations, all of which play a part in delivering a holistic service to women offenders that addresses their complex needs. It helps women with accommodation, employment, health and well-being, and drug and alcohol problems, debt and financial issues, children and families, and experience of domestic and sexual violence. Women engage well with the services and the project's success in reducing reoffending is to be commended.
	The Inspire project is one of a number of innovative projects that work with women offenders across the community. These projects are not only effective in reducing women's offending but very cost-effective. The cost of a women's centre placement is less than £15,000 a year, compared with the £56,000 it costs to keep a woman in custody. The cost-saving arguments are clear and will, I am sure, be of interest to the Government.
	The Bill represents an opportunity to bring about the radical change that is needed to reform the criminal justice system into one that works for women. That is why I and others were so disappointed to see that women had not been properly considered in the Bill, which was my motivation for tabling this amendment. Amendment 182A calls on the Government to establish a cross-departmental commission with responsibility for maintaining effective governance and the oversight of women's justice. This is much needed to ensure that women are given the support they need to stop their offending behaviour and to become active members of the community. The amendment offers an effective way of ensuring that the needs of women in the criminal justice system are considered at the highest level of decision-making within government.
	The commission would draw together representatives from government departments and public bodies whose responsibilities are relevant to the needs of women in the criminal justice system. It would include representatives from justice, health, social services, housing, education and employment. These key agencies would come together to develop, implement and monitor a cross-departmental strategy to reduce offending by women, and to ensure that the right services for women offenders are provided at the right time. It would also provide a report to Parliament each year, documenting progress through measurement, monitoring and accountability.
	Amendment 182B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on women in the criminal justice system, also calls on the Secretary of State to establish a women's justice commission, although it also asks for the commission to remain independent of government. However, I wonder whether there is not a case for exploring how we could bring the two concepts together.
	Finally, it is essential that appropriate arrangements such as these are in place to maintain the effective governance and oversight of women's justice. Without them, I fear that the needs of women offenders will continue to be marginalised and go unmet. I will then have to make another speech about women in prison in years to come-although certainly not in 19 years. I sincerely hope that that will not be necessary. I beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, it is a great pity that the position of women in the criminal justice system was neither included in the Bill nor debated when it was being processed through the other place.
	I was very glad that so many recommendations from the excellent report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, were accepted by the previous Government and supported by the coalition. Many repeated what I recommended in two earlier thematic reviews on women in prison in 1997 and 2001; that the Prison Reform Trust recommended in a report chaired by Professor Dorothy Wedderburn in 1999; and that the Fawcett Society recommended in three reports published between 2002 and 2006. Like the noble Baroness, we all appreciated that too many women who should not be there were in prison and that, while there, their treatment and conditions were not fit for purpose. I was motivated by my shock at finding, among other things, that women were being chained while in labour and having any injuries recorded on diagrams of male bodies because no diagrams of female bodies were issued. Therefore, while warmly welcoming the report of the noble Baroness, I must admit to my disappointment that it was not until they appeared in a report which the previous Government themselves commissioned that they either noted or took action on the recommendations for essential improvements that had been made earlier.
	Several times during the passage of the Bill, the Minister has told us that such and such an amendment is not necessary because a group has been appointed in the Ministry of Justice or NOMS to look at what is being put forward. I have to admit that every time he does I clench my fists and groan inwardly. Policy-making groups inside ministries are neither capable of designing and overseeing, nor designed to direct and oversee, the implementation of strategy-a word that is frequently misused because it is so imperfectly understood. A strategy is an overarching direction that binds everyone and everything involved in achieving a particular purpose. I have quoted previously the senior civil servant in the Home Office who berated me, saying that she wished I would stop talking about strategy because it was not a strategy that was needed but strategic direction. When I asked her what she meant, she replied, "Top-down, of course", implying that every ministerial utterance was to be regarded as strategic direction. No wonder offender management is in a muddle.
	Strategies require implementation, not just verbiage, and verbiage does not become strategy just because it comes from the top. I plead guilty as charged by any noble Lord who may accuse me of allowing my military background to influence my understanding of strategy, as well as my appreciation that nothing involving people will succeed unless they are overseen and led. That background fuelled my appreciation that all was not well with offender management in general, and with the treatment of and conditions for women in particular, when I saw what was and was not happening during my first inspection of Holloway more than 16 years ago. I admit to my astonishment when the then director-general of the Prison Service told me that there was no such person when I asked to see the director of women's prisons, who I presumed was responsible and accountable for their custody. The Prison Service, he told me, thought that a civil servant in the policy branch was quite sufficient. When I asked him who the governor of a women's prison could go to for help and advice, he said the area manager, who was responsible for the budget but might or might not have worked in a women's prison. In my report on that never to be forgotten inspection, I included a recommendation that a director of women's prisons be appointed.
	Since then, I have watched a series of expensive changes to the bureaucracy of offender management predictably fail to bring about the desired improvements on the ground because they did not include the appointment of individuals responsible and accountable for overseeing implementation in different types of prison and with different groups of prisoners. This, too, surprises me because Ministers and their officials are ignoring evidence that is before their eyes every day. My Army contemporary, General Sir John Learmont, came to exactly the same conclusion for exactly the same reasons when invited by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, to inquire into the escape of high-security prisoners from Parkhurst in 1994. However, his recommendation-that a responsible and accountable director of high-security prisons should be appointed-was accepted. As a result, they remain the only properly managed part of the prison system, in which good practice somewhere is turned into common practice everywhere, and incoming governors are required to carry on from where their predecessors left off. Why on earth has that success not been repeated with and for other groups?
	I repeated my recommendation in every other inspection report and the thematic reviews of women in prison that I mentioned earlier. Those reviews were only about prisons, but I was immediately attracted by Professor Wedderburn's recommendation that there should be a women's justice board, on the lines of the Youth Justice Board, that was responsible and accountable for women everywhere in the criminal justice system. I warmly supported the proposed wider responsibilities of the chairman seeing my hoped for director of women's prisons as an essential, responsible and accountable subordinate. I also saw the chairman sitting alongside the director-general of the Prison Service, the director of the National Probation Service and the chairman of the Youth Justice Board on an executive board in which each was responsible and accountable to Ministers for their part of the offender management system.
	My Amendment 182B differs in only two respects from that tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould, Lady Corston and Lady Hamwee. I recognise the noble Baroness's suggestion that we should get together and decide on one to go forward on Report. First, and semantically, I prefer the title "women's justice board" to "women's justice strategy commission" partly because it resonates with the success of the similarly roled Youth Justice Board and partly because the fact that boards produce and oversee strategy is already well understood by the public. Secondly, to accentuate the point that the chairman is responsible and accountable to the Secretary of State, I believe that he or she should be his or her principal adviser on women in the criminal justice system.
	My Amendment 182C mirrors recent introductions such as the requirement on the Secretary of State for Defence to give an annual account to Parliament of the operation of the Armed Forces covenant. The treatment of, and conditions for, women in the criminal justice system have been allowed to go by default for too long. My amendment is designed to ensure that this cannot happen in future.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, because I wanted my noble friend to have a voice from behind him. I know that he needs no prompting on this issue; it is something about which he feels strongly. Therefore, he will recognise that my adding my name is in part a tactic in what I hope will be discovered to be a thought-through strategy.
	I was attracted to the amendment because of the issue that it addresses but particularly by its reference to so many facets of women in the criminal justice system and areas beyond that system, including housing, social services and employment. The knock-on effects of the treatment of female offenders on their children, their housing situation and the likelihood of their becoming homeless are well understood and I do not need to reiterate them at this time of night. However, as has been said, women in this situation have particular needs and are affected by particular factors.
	I was attracted by four words in the noble Lord's Amendment 182C: namely, "just and appropriate treatment". I stress all those words. I was also attracted by the reference in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, to "services to women". That is a very important phrase to include in the amendment. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response. Therefore, I do not wish to take up any more of the Committee's time as I am aware how much business we need to get through tonight.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I support the aims of these amendments. In my view the issue of women in prison is one of the great injustices that have still not been dealt with in our society in spite of tremendous efforts by totally dedicated people and many excellent reports all saying the same thing. To impose punishment on someone who manifestly needs help and treatment is inhuman, degrading and quite unacceptable. I wish to concentrate my brief remarks on those women in prison who are seriously mentally ill.
	What a long history we have of locking up such women and failing to find another way. I still remember the 2006 BBC2 film that opened with a young woman cleaning up the blood of the latest incident of her cutting herself very severely. The basin was filled with blood, as was the toilet bowl. The film related that every night several of the prisoners tried to hang themselves and showed prison officers running from one attempted suicide to the next. Has this problem been solved? Not according to Clive Chatterton, the former governor of Styal Prison, whose comments have already been quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. In his letter to the Lord Chancellor, quoted in last Sunday's press, he describes a 20 year-old on remand for theft who repeatedly slashed her arms, then attempted to hang herself before setting fire to her body. When taken to hospital, she tried drinking a bottle of toxic disinfectant. Her last failed suicide bid involved swallowing a tampon and drinking water in the hope that the cotton would swell and obstruct her windpipe so that she would choke. Self-harming, he observed, was frequently the single element of their lives where the women could exert control.
	Rachel Halford, director of the excellent campaign group, Women in Prison, said that these women "have no power, which mirrors their previous experiences of abuse and neglect". A woman in prison told her, "Putting the blade in and watching the blood come down is the only time I can control something that's happening in here and stop the pain".
	Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons, has just reported on Styal women's prison. He said that the condition of the women in the mental health unit was,
	"more shocking and distressing than anything I have yet seen on an inspection. Despite the best efforts of the staff at Styal, the Keller unit remains a wholly unsuitable place to safely hold and manage very seriously damaged and mentally ill women".
	I understand that the Government are in talks with the Department of Health about putting an end to holding mentally ill women in a totally unsuitable place-a place of punishment. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how these discussions are progressing and whether the Government see a way of ending a situation that many of us in this House have talked about time and time again. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, is present. She has raised this issue frequently. Under this Government will some arrangements at last be put in place along the lines of the measures proposed in these amendments so that this disgraceful situation does not continue for another 19 years?

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I have spoken on this issue on a number of previous occasions. I particularly recall the moving debate on this subject initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
	We must accept that factors which affect female offenders are fairly complex. The use of more non-custodial options seems to bypass female offenders. We are told that the reason why we do not have a separate framework in law for women is because we have a different structure for them.
	When I last spoke in a similar debate, I was told that to go down the route towards a women's justice board could risk marginalising women further when what is needed is to mainstream the provision that we give women and ensure that under the national offender management structure sufficient priority is given to service provision for and management of female offenders.
	The fact remains that there are shared issues and special and specific issues which affect women. I wish to spell out in what ways female offenders' characteristics and needs are different from those of male offenders, and what needs to be done about this. First, a much higher proportion of female prisoners have mental health problems than do male prisoners. Surveys show that more women prisoners have a psychiatric history before entering prison. Many more have histories of self-harm than male prisoners, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. More have personality disorders, neurotic disorders, learning disabilities and problems of substance abuse, and much more, as far as having more than one diagnosis is concerned. Many more women prisoners have suffered past physical or sexual abuse at the hands of adults or partners.
	Secondly, a much higher proportion of women prisoners are sole carers for young children. In most cases where male prisoners are parents of young children, the child's mother is looking after them on the outside, but in only a quarter of cases of mothers in prison are the children being looked after by their current or former partners.
	Thirdly, because there are far fewer prisons holding female prisoners, women are much more likely to be imprisoned a long way away from their home areas. This makes visits from their children and other relatives more difficult.
	Over the last 18 years the courts have responded to the growing mood of toughness in penal policy by adopting a more punitive stance towards women offenders. During that time the number of women prisoners has risen more than twice as fast as the male prison population. Yet most women sent to prison are neither violent nor dangerous and the majority have few previous convictions.
	Against this background, what is the case for the establishment of a women's justice board? The analogy the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made with the Youth Justice Board is very appropriate. The Youth Justice Board has set standards for provision for young offenders; commissioned provision for young offenders; and developed initiatives ranging from intensive supervision and surveillance schemes for persistent young offenders, to youth inclusion programmes for young people at risk of offending.
	There is an equally strong case for the establishment of a women's justice board. A women's justice board with responsibility for commissioning provision for women offenders could set standards to ensure that provision meets women prisoners' particular needs. This would include standards meeting women offenders' needs for mental health services, for the maintenance of family contact and for culturally appropriate support for foreign national prisoners. A women's justice board could commission smaller units for imprisoned women spread around the country, so that women could be held nearer their families and home areas.
	In short, the establishment of a women's justice board could be the single most important step we could take towards improving the treatment of women offenders. These amendments will go a long way to deal with the issues I have identified.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, I hesitate to add to what has already been said. I hope that I do not impose upon my colleagues if I just say a very few words on this subject.
	My experience is twofold. It comes first from being a practitioner and a judge, involved daily in the sentencing process for prisoners, and secondly, since I ceased to be a judge, from my involvement with the excellent bodies we have in this country trying to promote issues within the prison and justice system as a whole. In the former, my capacity is well known. I think it is also well known that I am the current chairman of the Prison Reform Trust. I am also the president of the Butler Trust. I know from my experiences that the Prison Service works hard to address problems. I have seen prison officers behaving in the most commendable way to try to alleviate the difficulties that they are faced with.
	The fact is that, in all parts of the justice system, women prisoners need a separate voice, in exactly the same way as young offenders need a separate voice. I congratulate the Government on their decision to retain the Youth Justice Board. I am sure our justice system will continue to benefit from this. There is an opportunity now to add to what I will call that small victory with the establishment of the separate body to represent women which is part of this amendment. That, I believe, would be a substantial victory, because it would be creating something new which has been long needed, as we have heard. I hope that the message of this debate can be taken by the Government and acted upon.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I want to add my very brief words in support of these two proposals. Indeed, I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham will get together and work out the best framework. A women's justice board-I hope that that title will be retained-is without doubt something that has been called for, for a long time. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, I would like to say how pleased I am that the Youth Justice Board has been retained-very wisely, if I may say so.
	It is clearly a fact that women need rather different treatment, which is increasingly being recognised. There is a parallel with the kind of treatment and systems for young people, because they are a special group. Women above all have care for their young, and it is crucial that we stop the business of separating children from their parents by the systems that we have within the criminal justice system. We have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that it costs something like £15,000 to treat a woman within the community compared with £56,000 within the prison system. Far more important, even than that cost, is to keep the family together. One of the really good things that this Government are concentrating on, I am glad to say, is community sentences. It is with an increase of confidence in community sentences that we are likely to see these sorts of programmes for women really develop.
	I also want to support my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham's demand-and it must be a demand-for someone to be in charge. He has made this point again and again. Someone must be responsible for what is happening and reporting back to Parliament on the progress made. Programmes for treatment-not just for youngsters and/or women but for many people, whatever their age, within the criminal justice system-will emerge from this, and we can learn from the report back.
	That is more than enough from me, but I support this hugely important initiative and hope that it will get off the ground as soon as possible.

Lord Bach: My Lords, this has been a short but very important debate, and I commend all those who have spoken so far, showing great expertise. We have heard their voices before on this subject, much to our advantage.
	The previous Government commissioned the report from my noble friend Lady Corston after the tragic and avoidable deaths of six women in a short period who were detained in the secure estate. Her report of 2007 was a watershed moment in our understanding of women's experience in the criminal justice system. The recommendations were not limited to the secure estate but extended more widely to the entire criminal justice system, including the aim of preventing offending by women as well as dealing with women who had already offended. I am proud that we as a Government took forward the majority of those recommendations. Within just over two years, several were implemented in full; others were piloted.
	We are concerned that some of the recommendations are no longer getting the necessary resources. Everyone knows that we all want the same end, but it is a question of what means are employed to get it. We invested £15.6 million in the provision of additional services for women at risk of offending in the community, creating one-stop-shop support services and developing bail support to meet the needs of women. I understand that that has now been lowered to £3 million and that three of the one-stop-shop support services are no longer being financed. One close to where I come from is in Derby. Can the Minister find out and tell us the position? Is much less money being put in than was planned and are three of the one-stop shops not to receive any funding in the next financial year?
	We set up a central ministerial responsibility. Two powerful women Ministers, Maria Eagle and Vera Baird, were put in charge of ensuring that the Corston recommendations were fulfilled. I believe that Mr Crispin Blunt is now in charge, but no longer is there that successful joint ministerial responsibility. Why has the women's justice policy unit, set up in the Ministry of Justice but including civil servants from many departments, being disbanded? I hope that those are fair questions, and if the Minister cannot answer them tonight, of course he can tell us by letter in due course.
	I support the two sets of amendments. It is good to hear that both noble Lords will get together so that another amendment can be put at Report, which we very much hope will be accepted by the Government or, if not, by this House. Far too many women go to prison each year. The system is clearly still out of kilter. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lady Corston for starting us on a route to fixing a system that has been described so graphically this evening, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Of course, the system is not fixed, as my noble friend Lady Gould said in moving her amendment. We want a system that works for the public, victims and offenders.
	A powerful statutory voice at the centre of the system, whatever it is called, would be of huge benefit. As has been said around the Committee this evening, it worked very well with the Youth Justice Board. We are delighted that the Youth Justice Board is to survive. That would not have happened had it not been for this House. Its very existence hung in the balance for almost a year. It survived, and we are grateful to the Government, and particularly the Minister, who I am pretty sure played an important part in that decision. However, I hope that that does not indicate a certain state of mind towards the institution or organisation recommended in the amendments. As the Opposition, we certainly support the amendments and very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to them.

Lord McNally: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in a debate. I can only say that if the initial speech she made was 19 years ago, she must have started very young. I am sorry that circumstances prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, being with us but, as I have said before in this House, the Government-and I personally-have tried to continue the road map that she set out for the treatment of women prisoners.
	I am not sure that I am going to be entirely helpful to the Committee this evening, partly because, although I was certainly very happy that the YJB survived, I sometimes get a little worried that this House becomes obsessed with the solution to a problem being a commission, a committee, a tsar or some structure outside the problem. I am old fashioned enough to believe that the report to Parliament should come from the Minister and that the Minister should have responsibility. I also profoundly disagree with the disdain that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, frequently shows for the capacity of public servants to carry out responsible roles.

Lord Ramsbotham: I-

Lord McNally: I knew that the noble Lord would get to his feet but it is true.

Lord Ramsbotham: I do not in any way disparage civil servants in what they are required to do. I simply point out that it is wrong to use civil servants for things that they are neither trained nor competent to do. That has been my concern all along. They have their place and I absolutely support them and welcome what they do in their own job.

Lord McNally: I am delighted to have that on the record. Their own job includes some of the issues that we are discussing tonight.
	I go back to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I understand that my colleague-my noble friend Lady Northover-has visited the Brighton project to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred and that she firmly endorses the opinion that was expressed about its success. This point also goes back to the position and role of public servants-the people doing this tough job-and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, gave some graphic illustrations. I was also pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, mentioned that the people working in our Prison Service do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. Good care and support from staff saves many lives, and many such instances go unreported. In any given month, prisons successfully keep safe approximately 1,500 prisoners who are assessed to be at particular risk of suicide or self-harm.
	When people say, "You don't have a women's strategy", I dispute that. I think that we do and perhaps we should shout louder about it. As has been mentioned, my honourable friend Crispin Blunt in the other place is the Minister with responsibility in this area. On 24 January he made a speech to the Corston funders, setting out a report on progress in this area. He set out the Government's strategy for women offenders, which ensures that women will benefit in key areas such as mental health, drug recovery, tackling violence against women, troubled families, employment and women's community services, reflecting the good work by the National Offender Management Service to implement many of the recommendations in the Corston report.
	In that context, I am afraid that we do not believe that the amendment seeking a published women's strategy is necessary. We also believe that, as I said, accountability for a women's strategy should remain with Ministers. Perhaps they are better placed to influence policy across Government and we will ensure that other departments play their part too in supporting vulnerable women in the criminal justice system.
	Any women's strategy should be sufficiently flexible to respond to changing circumstances and new priorities, especially as we move towards more locally devolved commissioning to ensure provision is integrated into local services. To ensure that this momentum is maintained, we are working across government as well as with the voluntary and community sector to ensure that offenders receive treatment for their mental health, substance misuse and other health problems in the most appropriate setting, building on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, to roll out diversion and liaison services in all police custody and at courts by 2014. That has already begun. Last month the Minister for Care Services announced a further £20 million towards this objective from the Department of Health for 2012-13.
	We are working to ensure that women have a proper opportunity to get off drugs for good. Our plans include the design and implementation of payment-by-results pilots for drug and alcohol recovery, which will provide an ideal opportunity to improve the recovery outcomes for women in the criminal justice system. We are working to ensure that prisons place stronger emphasis on drug recovery and better continuity of treatment and care. We will therefore be piloting drug recovery wings at Her Majesty's prisons New Hall and Askham Grange from April this year, with a third women's prison to be identified soon.
	We are also ensuring that women who leave prison and claim jobseeker's allowance will have access to the work programme on release so that they have the same opportunities as men, and we are ensuring that services in the community are helping us to deliver effective sentences for women. We are spending an estimated £80 million a year on adult females serving community and suspended sentences and we can see women are doing slightly better than men on these sentences.
	The Prisons Minister recently announced that in 2012-13 the National Offender Management Service will continue to fund the vast majority of those community services-some 30 services in total. This amounts to an additional £3.5 million to existing probation trust budgets and will form part of their future baseline funding. To divert resources to create a new commission would, we believe, do little to advance the concerns that exist about the welfare and the distinct needs of women in the criminal justice system. We actively consider gender equality in everything that we do, as required by the Equality Act 2010. We are committed to monitoring progress on achieving key outcomes for women offenders in these, and all, areas of our approach to rehabilitating offenders. I believe this is sufficient provision, both under this Bill and more widely, to ensure that we are held to account for progress on this agenda.
	To summarise, we have the strategy for women; piloting drugs recovery wings; supporting the Department of Health to pilot and roll out liaison services in police custody and courts by 2014; looking at a number of intensive treatment-based alternatives to custody with the Department of Health, which was raised the noble Baroness, Lady Stern; and working with the Department for Communities and Local Government to support the ministerial working group on homelessness. That includes a scheme led by Crisis to improve access to the private rented sector for women offenders and women at risk of offending. We are also looking at gender issues in making prison a place of work and industry and improving the way in which we deliver learning for women in prison, as part of our work with the Department for Work and Pensions. We are working with Louise Casey to take forward a national programme to tackle the problems caused by our country's most troubled families, as well as working with the Home Office to support women offenders who have experienced domestic violence and abuse. It is simply not true that we have no strategy. Following the Corston report, and following what I think is best practice, we are branching out from a single department across Whitehall to get the best results.
	This morning, I read a letter in the Guardian, signed by Juliet Lyon and others, and its final sentence stated:
	"With clear strategic leadership and improved accountability, it should be possible to reduce offending by women and to reduce women's prison numbers".
	I fully endorse that statement and believe it profoundly. I said the other day in the House that one does not need to visit many women's prisons to see that far too many prisoners should not be there but should instead be dealt with and treated on the outside. That is certainly our direction of travel. I know that I will disappoint some noble Lords by saying that we will not set up a commission or other separate body. However, that does not take away from the fact that we are doing many things in the direction of travel of the Corston report. We are also doing many things on our own initiative to deal with the problem.
	Certain questions were asked about various bodies that were referred to. I do not know whether we have renamed them, but I will check. We are certainly continuing a lot of the cross-departmental work. I am also not sure whether the resources are exactly as the noble Lord left them. I suspect that some may have fallen foul of the necessary cuts that my department faced. However, I repeat that we are focusing money where we think that it can be best used. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I was fascinated to hear about the many things that he said were happening. However, from what he said I failed to see a strategy that went across government, and a co-ordination of all the things that he talked about. That will be essential if we are to solve this serious and urgent problem.
	I thank all noble Lords who spoke, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for agreeing to get together and draft a joint amendment on Report. The Minister said that we would not be satisfied with his answer, and we were not. We will almost certainly come back on Report. Perhaps he thought that our case was not strong enough. We will try to make a stronger case next time. I fail to understand why, despite all the graphic consequences being described, the amendments were not seen a little more sympathetically. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 182A withdrawn.
	Amendments 182B and 182C not moved.
	Debate on whether Clause 121 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, this is a probing suggestion that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. It relates to penalty notices for disorderly behaviour. The notices were introduced under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. They allow a police officer who has reason to believe that somebody has committed a particular kind of offence-described and listed in the Act as a penalty offence-to issue them with a notice that gives them the option, within 21 days, of either paying a fixed penalty or electing to be tried for the offence. If they do neither, they become liable to a higher penalty. The notices are designed to deal with offences of disorder. The Act includes references to drunk and disorderly behaviour, possession of cannabis, petty retail theft-I am not sure how that is defined-and causing criminal damage.
	Noble Lords might think that this is somewhat reminiscent of one of Tony Blair's less successful inspirations, by which offenders might be marched to the nearest cashpoint and compelled to force it to disgorge a certain amount of money at the behest of a police officer. That is not quite the way in which the system works. The current analogy of what Tony Blair suggested might be bankers who treat their banks' assets as something like a cashpoint and come away with considerable sums of money without any penalty being imposed-but that is by the way.
	Clause 121 and Schedule 20, with which it is linked, contain some interesting changes to the original scheme. They confer power on chief officers of police to set up a scheme in their area which would allow police officers to issue penalty notices not just, on this occasion, with a fine, but with an education option under which the offender-or the person suspected of having committed an offence because an offence does not have to be proved-would have the chance of avoiding the fixed penalty or court proceedings by undergoing an educational course for which he then pays the appropriate fee. This is somewhat reminiscent of the debate we had around the proposed scheme in London in relation to alcohol, but it is discrete. It is an analogous proposal. It is an interesting idea that such a course might be a suitable alternative to a financial penalty or court proceedings. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to say tonight or subsequently quite how far this concept has gone and whether indeed there are such educational courses available, whether this has been trialled anywhere, and so on. It would be helpful to have an understanding of where we are on this.
	I have a slight reservation that this is left to chief officers of police, so we can presumably have the same situation, the same set of circumstances, in two adjoining force areas and an entirely different way of dealing with matters. I do not know whether the Minister will indicate whether she is content that this matter should be left entirely to the discretion of chief officers or whether it might be government policy eventually, perhaps having trialled the thing, to see whether it might be rolled out in a more systematic way.
	Certainly, it is a welcome innovation to look at more constructive ways of steering people away from, in this case, disorderly and relatively minor criminal behaviour without the more drastic consequences of punishment through the courts. Nevertheless, there are some issues that arise with this proposal. First, I should welcome the fact that the notice cannot be given to a person under the age of 18, so we are dealing with adults only. However, there are some reservations about other aspects of the proposals. The first is the requirement that the police officer issuing a notice to an individual other than at a police station must be in uniform. In other words, a police officer out of uniform will still have that power to give a notice. I think that that is not good practice. It is something that I invite the Government to explain. It might be regarded as a matter of convenience, but if we are talking about disorder, if somebody who says he is a police officer and is not in uniform hands out a notice, one can envisage circumstances developing in a way that is not intended. In other words, there might be resistance to an approach of that kind from somebody not in uniform. Obviously, there might be some other evidence of the officer's status, but I do not see that that suggestion is likely to assist in dealing with the matter. The other requirement, and I am less concerned about this, is that police officers currently have to be authorised constables when they are delivering notices in a police station. That would no longer be the case. Perhaps that is less obvious because people are then in police custody and the situation would be clearer.
	However, there are some other reservations about these matters. When this was debated in the House of Commons, an amendment was moved by Helen Goodman MP for the Opposition maintaining the obligation of a police officer issuing a penalty notice for disorder to be in uniform and for the actual act of delivering that notice to take place within a police station. That was not accepted, but I would be interested in hearing the rationale for turning down that suggestion.
	Helen Goodman also raised the issue of out-of-court disposals. It is interesting that the Explanatory Note to Chapter 7 of the Bill is headed "Out of court disposals". Liberty has expressed worries about proposals aimed at increasing the use of out-of-court disposals, including these notices, which it believes can be contrary to fundamental principles of justice. It says:
	"On-the-spot police punishment without the involvement of the judiciary"
	is a matter for concern, and:
	"Bypassing normal judicial and fair trial safeguards can leave individuals open to bias and irrationality in sentencing decisions".
	These are effectively sentencing decisions.
	This concern is reinforced by the views of the criminal sub-committee of the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges, which might be thought to have a somewhat different standpoint from Liberty but nevertheless shares some of those concerns. Its report said:
	"We have expressed our concerns about the ever increasing use of out of court disposals for what is, in reality, criminal activity for some years. We remain very concerned ... Out of court disposals have, increasingly, been used as a response to truly criminal activity and the general public may have no idea how the situation has developed and the range of matters that may now be dealt with by extra judicial processes ... Until recent years, in our view appropriately, the use of fixed financial penalties has been in relation to offences that might be termed 'regulatory'".
	It then looked at the issue of disorder, and went on to say:
	"The use of fixed penalties as a response to truly criminal offending is to create the impression that truly criminal offending is not to be treated as significant. We are concerned that this is likely to encourage the belief that crime may not result in retribution and introduce the perception that some criminal activity does not merit proper process or consequences whilst other matters which might be deemed regulatory breach rather than truly criminal activity, result in equivalent or more serious consequences. In the long term, such a policy carries substantial risk. If less serious, but nonetheless criminal activity is to result in similar sanctions to regulatory breach, it is likely to come to be regarded as no more serious. So at the risk of stating the obvious if, for example, theft in a shop"-
	and I remind your Lordships that "petty retail theft" is one of the grounds for administering the notice-
	"attracts the same consequence as unlawful parking, it may come to be regarded as equivalent in seriousness. This must have an impact upon the numbers who may be tempted to engage in truly criminal activity".
	It is not the same standpoint as Liberty's but it nevertheless touches on a real issue.
	Many of us would probably accept the distinction that a fixed penalty for some offences, such as drunk and disorderly, is perfectly appropriate, but when we come to theft and criminal damage, which of course can vary widely in degrees of seriousness, we are perhaps in somewhat more difficult territory. Whether you take the Liberty perspective of there being the need for a proper judicial process for this-rather than people admitting to something because this process offers a quick resolution, whether or not they regard themselves as guilty of it-or whether you look at it from the point of view of the circuit judges as sending the wrong signal about the seriousness of the crime, there is a real issue.
	Of course, I will not be pressing this matter to a vote. It is designed to probe. But I wonder whether the Government would envisage reviewing this situation after a period to see what is actually happening on the ground, particularly with regard to the fact that there may be this variation in what chief officers of police may choose to do. We are in new territory and in many ways the thrust of the Government's proposals is sensible, but there are concomitant risks that it would be interesting to hear the Minister's views about.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, this clause gives effect to Schedule 20, which amends the PND-penalty notice for disorderly behaviour-scheme by giving the police the power to issue adult penalty notices with an education option, to abolish PNDs for under 18s and to remove some unnecessary constraints on a police officer's ability to issue a PND.
	PNDs were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, under the previous Government, to provide the police with a swift financial sanction to deal on the spot with low-level offending. PNDs may be issued for a specified range of offences listed in Section 1 of the 2001 Act. They include being drunk and disorderly, as we have heard, in a public place, low-level retail theft, behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and cannabis possession. I would reiterate that, in relation to the concerns mentioned by the noble Lord, PNDs were introduced by the previous Government.
	At present the recipient of a PND has 21 days either to pay the penalty amount or to request a court hearing. By paying the penalty amount-currently £80 or £50 depending on the type of offence-the suspect discharges all liability to be prosecuted for and convicted of the offence, and no admission of guilt is required. If the recipient fails to take any action during the 21-day suspended enforcement period, a fine of one and a half times the penalty amount may be registered against them by the magistrates' court.
	Some 76 per cent of adults who received a PND in 2008 did not reoffend within one year. However, we believe that some individuals receiving PNDs would benefit from an educational intervention to reduce the likelihood of them reoffending. That is why we are responding to police requests for suitable PND recipients to be given the option to discharge their liability to conviction of the offence by paying to attend an educational course-where a police force has set up such a scheme-rather than simply paying the penalty amount in full. The noble Lord asked about examples. A number of schemes are operating in various forces, including Hertfordshire where courses are run by a charity called Druglink. It is self-sustaining as offenders pay to attend the courses.
	Schedule 20 therefore gives the chief officer of a police force the power to establish an educational course scheme in his or her area and, where such a scheme has been set up, for officers in that area where appropriate to issue penalty notices with an education option. A recipient of a PND with an education option would be able to discharge their liability to be prosecuted for and convicted of the penalty offence in one of two ways. They could either pay the penalty amount in full or pay for and complete an educational course. Of course-I think that this is the key point in answer to the noble Lord-it remains an option to contest their responsibility for the offence by requesting a court hearing. A suspect's failure to exercise any of these options, including paying for a course but then not attending or completing it, would result in a fine being registered against them at court of one and a half times the amount of the penalty.
	PNDs with an education option will be offered only if a course has been set up in that area for the specific offence for which the PND was issued and where the police officer considers it to be appropriate. It is intended that courses will highlight the implications of the suspect's behaviour, both for him or herself, or for the victim and the community, with the aim of reducing the likelihood of reoffending. For example, an individual suspected of being drunk and disorderly may be offered a PND with an option to attend an alcohol awareness course.
	The schedule confers a number of new powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the detail of educational course schemes, including the fees that may be set for a course and arrangements for dealing with non-attendance. In addition, and as part of work to develop a clearer national framework for dealing with adult and youth offending out of court, the schedule abolishes PNDs for under 18s. This will simplify youth out-of-court disposals and enable the police to focus on offering disposals that allow rehabilitative and reparative activities to take place. The aim is to prevent further offending and provide greater redress to victims and communities.
	Finally, we are also cutting red tape and simplifying frontline police processes by removing the existing requirements that a police officer issuing a PND outside a police station must be in uniform and an officer issuing a PND inside a station must be formally authorised to do so. Both of these requirements are unnecessary. The uniform provision is particularly problematic in plain clothes operations-for example, test purchasing to tackle underage alcohol sales where officers are forced to bring suspects back to the police station to issue a PND. They would still need to demonstrate that they are indeed police officers. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that there is a protection.
	I think that I have covered most of what the noble Lord raised and I hope that Members of the Committee will welcome these improvements to the PND scheme. I would ask that Clause 121 and Schedule 20 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Beecham: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response and the information that she has given. I still think there is potentially something of a problem with dispensing with the uniform requirement, although I do not know what evidence there is that it has caused actual problems. Will the Minister say whether there will be a review of how the system is working in two or three years' time to see if it is operating as intended? What stage are we at in terms of the regulations being drawn up that she referred to? Presumably they will come through under the normal procedure for approval.

Baroness Northover: In terms of review, the Government's position is always to keep legislation under review and to take steps to deal with issues that arise, so obviously if the kind of concerns flagged up by the noble Lord are seen to develop, that would be picked up in any kind of review. I am sure that the regulations coming through will follow the normal procedures and that we will have all sorts of things to consider, but if I am not right about that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
	Clause 121 agreed.
	Schedule 20 agreed.
	Clause 122 : Conditional cautions: involvement of prosecutors
	Amendment 183 not moved.
	Clause 122 agreed.
	Clause 123 agreed.
	Clause 124 : Youth cautions
	Amendments 184 and 185 not moved.
	Amendment 185A
	 Moved by Lord Beecham
	185A: Clause 124, page 106, line 12, at end insert-
	"(6A) Within three years of the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State must review and report to Parliament on the operation of youth cautions, in particular, the use of appropriate adults in the cautionary processes and whether it should be extended to 18 year olds.
	(6B) At any point following a report being made under subsection (6A), the Secretary of State may by order extend the appropriate adult provisions in this section to a person given a youth caution, where that person is under the age of 18."

Lord Beecham: My Lords, given the time, happily this is a short amendment. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 established that people under the age of 17 years are to be treated as children and therefore have to be questioned or interviewed in the presence of an appropriate adult, but people of 17 years of age and up to 18 are not treated in the same way. The Government have dealt with what has been an anomaly about treating 17 year-olds as adults for the purposes of bail, and that has now been changed to lift the age to 18. It would seem to be consonant with that approach if the appropriate adult provision was also extended from 17 years of age to 18. This is a straightforward matter and I should say that the Prison Reform Trust, in which I declare an interest as a member of its advisory group on youth offending, strongly urges that this should be dealt with in the same way as the bail situation. Incidentally, the trust extends its thanks and praise to the Government, so if they want another round of thanks and praise, they merely have to accept this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, how very kind of the noble Lord. Youth cautions are specifically designed for young offenders and the provisions in Clause 124 underline our approach to the prevention of offending by children and young people by providing assessment and rehabilitative programmes through specialised youth offending teams. The noble Lord has flagged up the suggestion that appropriate adult provisions should be extended to offenders above the age of 17.
	Work is under way in the Home Office, the Youth Justice Board and the Ministry of Justice to look at the possibility of extending the appropriate adult scheme for all under-18s in the criminal justice system. However, we will need to consider fully the resource implications before any change can be made. At the moment, we feel that the scheme needs to remain as it is, but we keep it under review. For the reasons I have set out, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Beecham: My Lords, I am not going to divide a thinly attended House at this hour of the night on this issue. What the Minister said is again consonant with the first amendment, which, after all, suggests a three-year period. That should be long enough even for the Home Office to come to some conclusions. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 185A withdrawn.
	Amendment 185B
	 Moved by Baroness Northover
	185B: Clause 124, page 107, line 29, after "instrument" insert "(whenever passed or made)"

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 185C, 185D and 185E. These are minor and technical amendments relating to youth cautions. I beg to move.
	Amendment 185B agreed.
	Amendments 185C and 185D
	 Moved by Baroness Northover
	185C: Clause 124, page 107, line 36, after "instrument" insert "(whenever passed or made)"
	185D: Clause 124, page 107, line 36, leave out "66ZA" and insert "66ZB"
	Amendments 185C and 185D agreed.
	Clause 124, as amended, agreed.
	Schedule 21 : Youth cautions: consequential amendments
	Amendment 185E
	 Moved by Baroness Northover
	185E: Schedule 21, page 228, line 21, at end insert-
	"Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (c. 23)
	30 In Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (fingerprints and samples), in paragraph 10(1)(a) (circumstances when an individual is to be treated as having been convicted of an offence)-
	(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) insert "or", and
	(b) omit sub-paragraph (iv) and the "or" preceding that sub-paragraph."
	Amendment 185E agreed.
	Schedule 21, as amended, agreed.
	Clauses 125 to 127 agreed.
	Amendment 185F
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	185F: After Clause 127, insert the following new Clause-
	"CHAPTER 7ARehabilitation of offenders
	Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods
	(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 5(1)(b) and (d) (sentences excluded from rehabilitation) for "thirty months" substitute "forty eight months".
	(3) In the opening words of section 5(1A) (references to provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006) for "subsection (1)(d)" substitute "this section".
	(4) For section 5(2) to (11) (rehabilitation periods) substitute-
	"(2) For the purposes of this Act and subject to subsections (3) and (4), the rehabilitation period for a sentence is the period-
	(a) beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed, and
	(b) ending at the time listed in the following Table in relation to that sentence:
	
		
			 Sentence End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders End of rehabilitation period for offenders under 18 at date of conviction 
			 A custodial sentence of more than30 months and up to, or consisting of, 48 months The end of the period of 7 years beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed The end of the period of 42 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed 
			 A custodial sentence of more than6 months and up to, or consisting of, 30 months The end of the period of 48 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed The end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed 
			 A custodial sentence of 6 months or less The end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed The end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed 
			 Removal from Her Majesty's service The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed 
			 A sentence of service detention The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed 
			 A fine The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed 
			 A compensation order The date on which the payment is made in full The date on which the payment is made in full 
			 A community or youth rehabilitation order The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect 
			 A relevant order The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect 
		
	
	(3) Where no provision is made by or under a community or youth rehabilitation order or a relevant order for the last day on which the order is to have effect, the rehabilitation period for the order is to be the period of 24 months beginning with the date of conviction.
	(4) There is no rehabilitation period for-
	(a) an order discharging a person absolutely for an offence, or
	(b) any other sentence in respect of a conviction where the sentence is not dealt with in the Table or under subsection (3),
	and, in such cases, references in this Act to any rehabilitation period are to be read as if the period of time were nil.
	(5) See also-
	(a) section 8AA (protection afforded to spent alternatives to prosecution), and
	(b) Schedule 2 (protection for spent cautions).
	(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend column 2 or 3 of the Table or the number of months for the time being specified in subsection (3).
	(7) For the purposes of this section-
	(a) consecutive terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences are to be treated as a single term,
	(b) terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences which are wholly or partly concurrent (that is terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences imposed in respect of offences of which a person was convicted in the same proceedings) are to be treated as a single term,
	(c) no account is to be taken of any subsequent variation, made by a court dealing with a person in respect of a suspended sentence of imprisonment, of the term originally imposed,
	(d) no account is to be taken of any subsequent variation of the day originally provided for by or under an order as the last day on which the order is to have effect,
	(e) no account is to be taken of any detention or supervision ordered by a court under section 104(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,
	(f) a sentence imposed by a court outside England and Wales is to be treated as the sentence mentioned in this section to which it most closely corresponds.
	(8) In this section-
	"community or youth rehabilitation order" means-
	(a) a community order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
	(b) a service community order or overseas community order under the Armed Forces Act 2006,
	(c) a youth rehabilitation order under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, or
	(d) any order of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by an order mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),
	"custodial sentence" means-
	(a) a sentence of imprisonment,
	(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,
	(c) a sentence of Borstal training,
	(d) a sentence of youth custody,
	(e) a sentence of corrective training,
	(f) a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,
	(g) a detention and training order under section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or an order under section 211 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,
	(h) any sentence of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by a sentence mentioned in paragraph (f) or (g),
	"earlier statutory order" means-
	(a) an order under section 54 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 committing the person convicted to custody in a remand home,
	(b) an approved school order under section 57 of that Act, or
	(c) any order of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by an order mentioned in any of paragraphs (c) to (e) of the definition of "relevant order" or in paragraph (a) or (b) above,
	"relevant order" means-
	(a) an order discharging a person conditionally for an offence,
	(b) an order binding a person over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour,
	(c) an order under section 1(2A) of the Street Offences Act 1959,
	(d) a hospital order under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (with or without a restriction order),
	(e) a referral order under section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,
	(f) an earlier statutory order, or
	(g) any order which imposes a disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty and is not otherwise dealt with in the Table or under subsection (3),
	but does not include a reparation order under section 73 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,
	"removal from Her Majesty's service" means a sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, a sentence of dismissal from Her Majesty's service or a sentence of cashiering or discharge with ignominy,
	"sentence of imprisonment" includes a sentence of penal servitude (and "term of imprisonment" is to be read accordingly),
	"sentence of service detention" means-
	(a) a sentence of service detention (within the meaning given by section 374 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or a sentence of detention corresponding to such a sentence, in respect of a conviction in service disciplinary proceedings, or
	(b) any sentence of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by a sentence mentioned in paragraph (a)."
	(5) In section 6 (subsequent convictions to extend the rehabilitation period applicable to a conviction)-
	(a) in subsection (5) (exception to rule for certain orders imposing disqualifications etc.) for "in accordance with section 5(8) above" substitute "by virtue of paragraph (g) of the definition of "relevant order" in section 5(8) above", and
	(b) omit subsection (6) (other exceptions to the rule).
	(6) After section 8A (protection afforded to spent cautions) insert-
	"8AA Protection afforded to spent alternatives to prosecution
	(1) The following provisions of this Act apply, with the modifications specified in subsection (3), to a spent alternative to prosecution as they apply to a spent caution-
	(a) section 9A (unauthorised disclosure of spent cautions), and
	(b) paragraphs 2 to 6 of Schedule 2 (protection relating to spent cautions and ancillary circumstances).
	(2) An alternative to prosecution becomes spent for the purposes of this Act when it becomes spent under the law of Scotland.
	(3) The modifications mentioned in subsection (1) are-
	(a) references to cautions are to be read as references to alternatives to prosecution (and references to cautioned are to be read accordingly),
	(b) references to the offence which was the subject of the caution are to be read as references to the offence in respect of which the alternative to prosecution was given,
	(c) paragraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 are to be read as if they were-
	"(e) anything done or undergone in pursuance of the terms of the alternative to prosecution,",
	(d) references to cautions for an offence are to be read as references to alternatives to prosecution in respect of an offence, and
	(e) the reference in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the rehabilitation period applicable to the caution is to be read as a reference to the time at which the alternative to prosecution becomes spent.
	(4) In this section "alternative to prosecution" has the same meaning as in section 8B as that section has effect in the law of Scotland but disregarding subsection (1)(f) of that section."
	(7) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 (protection for spent cautions)-
	(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) (when conditional cautions to be regarded as spent cautions) for ", at the end of the relevant period for the caution;" substitute "-
	(i) at the end of the period of three months from the date on which the caution is given, or
	(ii) if earlier, when the caution ceases to have effect; and", and
	(b) omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) (meaning of "the relevant period for the caution")."

Lord McNally: My Lords, we now turn to a group of amendments which include the reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The primary purpose of the Act is to support the effective rehabilitation of ex-offenders. It seeks to support routes into employment while maintaining an appropriate balance towards public protection. It does this by allowing ex-offenders who have stayed on the right side of the law for a certain period not to have to reveal their previous convictions. At the same time, the exceptions order to the Act entitles employers in certain areas of work such as work with children and vulnerable adults, or in certain sensitive financial or legal positions, to see information about spent convictions.
	I have received today a letter from Mr Nick Starling, the director of general insurance at the Association of British Insurers, raising some concerns that it had about our proposals. He says in the letter that he would like to meet me to discuss the issues that he raises. I am certainly very happy to do that before Report.
	The Act, therefore, is intended to balance public protection with efforts to rehabilitate offenders. However, it has not been reformed since it was introduced 38 years ago. Sentencing practice has become more punitive, but the scope of the Act and the rehabilitation periods have stayed the same. We also aware that studies have shown a positive association between employment and a reduced risk of reoffending. In considering reform, we have considered the responses to the government Green Paper Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, and wider support for change from organisations that work with ex-offenders. In that respect, I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has worked tirelessly over the years to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
	Amendment 185F extends the scope of the Act to include custodial sentences of up to and including four years in length. Sentences more than four years in length will never become spent. We believe that this approach is a sensible and balanced one that extends the scope of the Act but recognises the seriousness of offences attracting custodial sentences of more than four years. Many more reformed offenders will have improved employment prospects, while public protection is maintained.
	We are also shortening the rehabilitation periods that apply. Evidence shows that offenders are most at risk of reoffending during the first 24 months after they are released from custody. These new periods take greater account of this evidence so that they are more proportionate to the period of risk of reoffending. However, offenders will still be required to show over an extended period in the community that they can remain free of convictions before being considered rehabilitated. The rehabilitation period for community orders will also be directly linked to the length of the order itself. An offender will first have to complete the order and then remain conviction-free for an additional year.
	The table contained in Amendment 185F lists the end date of the rehabilitation period for each sentence. For individuals who are under 18 when they are convicted, rehabilitation periods that run beyond the end of sentence will continue to be halved in relation to adults, with the exception of one. It is necessary to have an additional period of 18 months to apply at the end of custodial sentences of less than six months for juveniles, otherwise, for example, a six-month custodial sentence would become spent before an 18-month community order. It is important that we maintain the requisite balance in dealing with the hierarchy of sentences.
	There is significant confusion around what happens when an offender commits a further offence when they are still subject to a rehabilitation period for another. Different rules apply to different types of offences-whether summary only, either way or indictable only-resulting in individuals either not revealing what they should, or revealing too much.
	Subsection (5) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 185F, therefore, will introduce a single rule when an offender commits a further offence. All rehabilitation periods applicable at any given time will remain for the duration of the longest rehabilitation period. This reflects the fact that a prolific offender should be required to prove that he has truly put his life of crime behind him before he benefits from the protections of the ROA.
	Amendment 185G inserts a new clause into the Bill that exempts immigration decisions from the effect of the ROA. Information about an individual's character and conduct are essential to establishing if an individual should be given permission to enter or remain in the UK, including being granted British citizenship. This amendment means that both spent and unspent convictions can be considered when making these assessments. This will allow the UK Border Agency the appropriate level of discretion in its decision-making.
	Amendment 187ZA introduces a schedule that preserves the position in Scotland as the ROA is a devolved matter. These amendments, other than the immigration and nationality exemption, apply to England and Wales only. The Scottish Government are aware of these reforms and are keeping their legislation under review.
	I turn now to Amendments 185FA, 185FB, 185FC and 185FD, in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. Amendment 185FA would extend the scope of the Act so that custodial sentences of up to and including 10 years could become spent. This amendment would, we believe, tip the balance too far away from public protection.
	When the Act was first introduced, some 10 per cent of offenders sentenced at the Crown Court were excluded from it. Now that figure is more like 20 per cent. The government amendments increase the scope of the Act to four years, which would mean that around 93 per cent of adult offenders sentenced to custody in 2010 would fall broadly under the Act-a return to the position established in 1974. We do not believe that going beyond that is appropriate given the seriousness of offences that would attract sentences of over four years.
	Amendments 185FB to 185FD would see sentences of between 30 months and four years attract a rehabilitation period of four years from the end of sentence, in line with sentences of between six and 30 months. The government amendment proposes a period of seven years from the end of sentence. This recognises that as offending behaviour gets more serious, it should be treated more seriously. Serious offenders should have to prove for a longer period of time that they are no longer at risk of reoffending before they can benefit from having their conviction spent. If we are to get the balance right towards properly protecting the public, then I believe that this is the right approach.
	The final amendment, supported also by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile, would mean that any offender convicted under the age of 18 would, upon turning 18, have their conviction spent provided they had completed their sentence. The Government recognise that younger people have a greater capacity to reform and change. For that reason, we propose that, for young offenders, the rehabilitation periods that run beyond the end of sentence will in most cases be half that of adults. We believe that is the right approach. We must remember that many disposals for young offenders are spent immediately or on completion of the relevant order. It is the more serious penalties that carry rehabilitation periods beyond the end of sentence. These reflect the period when the risk of reoffending is at its highest.
	The Government consider that it is important that offenders of any age should be able to show that they have put their offending behaviour behind them before their convictions meriting serious disposals can become spent. However, under the proposed amendment, the older the young offender, the sooner the conviction would become spent. That does not seem to us to be right, nor does it reflect reoffending evidence.
	I have no objections to my noble friends pressing me to go further on these matters, but politics is the art of the possible. I hope I can persuade my noble friends not only not to press their amendments but to go further and recognise and support our amendments as a significant step in supporting the rehabilitation of offenders. Together with the wider reforms aimed at tackling reoffending in this Bill, they will help deliver the right balance between public protection and the freedom for a person to put their past behind them. This will in turn contribute to a reduced level of reoffending through getting offenders into work. I beg to move.
	Amendment 185FA (as an amendment to Amendment 185F)
	 Moved by Lord Dholakia
	185FA: After Clause 127, line 7, leave out "forty-eight months" and insert "10 years"

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, my Amendments 185FA to 185FD would amend government Amendment 185F.
	I very much welcome the new clause proposed by my noble friend the Minister, which will amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. As noble Lords are well aware, I have consistently campaigned for changes to the Act for many years, and my efforts have been supported by noble Lords of all parties. Although there has been general sympathy from many quarters for change, my noble friend's new clauses are the first concrete change to the Act for nearly four decades, and I certainly welcome them. The Government's initiative will allow many more people with criminal records to start again with a clean slate and will undoubtedly make a real contribution to the reduction in the number of crimes committed by former offenders excluded from the job market.
	I welcome the explanation already given by the Minister in relation to my amendments, but I have no desire or wish to pursue them any further, other than to put forward a point of view that may be different and on the basis of which I have designed my Private Member's Bill. My amendments are designed to go further than the government proposals in two respects. First, they would further reduce the rehabilitation period for sentences of between 30 months and four years. The Government propose that the rehabilitation period for this group should be seven years from the end of the sentence, whereas my amendments would fix that period at four years.
	Secondly, my amendments would enable sentences of between four and 10 years to be spent up to seven years from the end of the sentence. This goes further than the Government's proposals, which would leave offenders with sentences of over four years out of the scope of the Act, so that their offences would never become spent. My amendments are nearer the periods of Breaking the Circle, the review of the Act that was published in 2002 and which the noble Lord mentioned. The Government's proposals are considerably more timid than the recommendations of that review.
	The House will recall that in 2001 the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, set up a review group to examine whether, three decades after the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, there was a cause for reform. The review group was chaired by a senior Home Office official and included representatives from the police, the probation service, the legal profession, the judiciary, employers and voluntary agencies. In 2002, the review group published its conclusions in the report Breaking the Circle. Following consultation, the then Government accepted a modified version of the review group's proposal in 2003. Under those modified proposals, the rehabilitation period would have been one year for non-custodial sentences, two years for custodial sentences of under four years, and four years for custodial sentences of four years or more. These rehabilitation periods would have applied to all offences except those that resulted in a life sentence. These proposals also received widespread support, not least in many debates in this House, but were never implemented by the previous Government.
	My noble friend the Minister's proposals are welcome as far as they go, but they are much more cautious than the modifiedBreaking the Circleproposals. For non-custodial sentences and for sentences of under six months, the Government's proposals follow Breaking the Circle, and I certainly welcome them. However, for those serving sentences of between six and 30 months, the Government propose a rehabilitation period of four years compared with the Breaking the Circle proposal of two years. For offenders with sentences of between 30 months and four years, the Government propose a rehabilitation period of seven years compared with the Breaking the Circle proposal of two years. For those serving sentences of more than four years, that review proposed a rehabilitation period of four years. In contrast, the Government's proposals leave those offenders out of the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act completely. Their offences will never be able to become spent, however many years they avoid turning back to crime. This is very sad indeed.
	My amendments do not go as far as the Breaking the Circle proposals, but they would improve the Government's proposals in two respects. For offenders with sentences of between 30 months and four years, they would reduce the extremely lengthy proposed rehabilitation period of seven years to four years. They would also bring offenders serving between four and 10 years within the scope of the Act, so that their offences would become spent seven years after the end of their period of post-release licence.
	I must add that all ex-offenders will still have to declare all their past convictions if they apply for jobs in a sensitive area of work, such as criminal justice agencies, financial institutions and working with young or vulnerable adults. However, my proposals would reduce the degree of unfair discrimination against reformed offenders who have not reoffended for several years and are applying for jobs in areas that are not high risk.
	Why is it important to ensure that offenders with shorter sentences do not have to wait an unduly long time to benefit from the Act, and that offenders with longer determinate sentences can also benefit from it? It is because unfair discrimination against ex-offenders is wrong in principle. It imposes an additional illegitimate penalty of refusing employment to people who have already served a judicially ordered punishment for their crime.
	Regrettably, such discrimination is still widespread. Surveys of ex-offenders in Nacro projects-I declare an interest as president of Nacro-have shown that 60 per cent have been refused jobs because of their criminal records. Many of those were non-sensitive jobs, and in many cases employers turned down applicants even though their offences had no relevance to the job for which they were applying. The scope of discrimination is wide because the decisions to employ people or refuse them a job are not made at the top of a company-they are made by a large number of individual personnel staff who usually have had no specific training in how to deal with applications from people with criminal records.
	This kind of discrimination does not help to protect the public. On the contrary, it puts the public more at risk because an ex-offender's risk of reoffending is reduced by between one-third and one-half if he or she gets and keeps a job. The whole community benefits when offending is reduced, but employers benefit in particular because crime such as cheque and credit card fraud, shoplifting, the robbery of retail outlets and the burglary of commercial premises have a particularly damaging impact on business.
	I hope that the Minister will look favourably on these proposals and see whether they are at all possible in the areas that I have talked about. That would extend the benefits of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act more widely than the Minister's current proposal. I have one further request: will the Minister examine how these systems could be monitored so that the impact of his amendment could be measured and, if necessary, we could look at further amendments in future criminal justice legislation? I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I congratulate the Government on the amendments that they are introducing into the Bill, which are the culmination of years of campaigning by my noble friend Lord Dholakia-within, and with the support of, the Liberal Democrats-to modernise the law.
	Amendment 185FAA, in my name, was suggested by the Howard League, of which my noble friend Lord Carlile is president-unhappily, he cannot be with us tonight. Its purpose is to recognise that children may change in a shorter time than adults, something that the Minister has already recognised in his remarks today. The amendment affects a significant proportion of children with the opportunity to wipe the slate clean upon reaching 18 years of age. It refers to the question raised in the Green Paper that has been referred to: that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 be amended so that children convicted of non-serious offences have a clean slate on reaching their majority. Paragraph 117 of the Green Paper says:
	"We would welcome views on how we might do more for young offenders as we are aware that some people are, for example, finding their path to higher education blocked on the basis of juvenile convictions. 'Wiping the slate clean' once the offender reaches adulthood is a possible approach for all but the most serious offences".
	There is no reference to this suggestion in the Government's response to the consultation, and I do not know whether any of the respondees actually dealt with the question that was asked.
	Wiping the slate clean would have a big impact on the future employment prospects of young offenders. It is obviously intended to apply only to non-serious offences and the public will not be at risk of any harm. Clearly, the usual suite of public protection arrangements will continue to apply to jobs that involve working with children and vulnerable people. If this provision were adopted, it would be a powerful incentive for young people to rehabilitate as responsible adults in their communities. Such an incentive is important at a time when youth unemployment is at a record high and there is a risk of both crime and detention rates spiralling further.
	The amendment has been crafted to ensure that rehabilitation periods are not spent before a young person completes their sentence. That does not mean that those who would otherwise be required to wait a long time before their conviction is spent would suddenly find themselves without any rehabilitation period at all, simply due to having committed an offence close to their 18th birthday. It would exempt those still serving their sentence at 18, including the licence period of that sentence, from the "wipe the slate clean" provision. In other words, if a young person committed a theft aged 17 and is sentenced to three years in detention, he would attract a rehabilitation period of three and a half years, commencing on the completion of his sentence at the age of 20. Therefore, the conviction would not be spent until he reached 23 years of age. However, if he committed a theft at the age of 14 and was sentenced to three years' detention, instead of waiting until the age of 21 for the conviction to be spent his sentence would expire when he was 17 and his conviction would automatically become spent on his 18th birthday. This provision deals with the possible criticism that a person who commits an offence aged 17 years and 11 months would have his conviction wiped clean on his 18th birthday. That would clearly be unacceptable and is most certainly not the intention of this amendment.
	The Government raised the question in the Green Paper but we have not had an answer. I would welcome a response from my noble friend.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, briefly, I support the government amendments that have been tabled and echo the many warm things that have been said about the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his persistence in pursuing this matter.
	I merely mention that in 2001 I was invited to inspect the young offender institutions in the Caribbean. In Barbados, I found a system in which, at the age of 18, every child automatically had their convictions looked at and the slate wiped clean of all except those that it was deemed in a schedule should be carried forward. I brought that information back and fed it into the team studying Breaking the Circle at that time. Given all the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Thomas, it seemed particularly important that this should apply to young offenders so that they were not hampered, particularly in their further education, by crimes that they had committed as children.

Lord McNally: My Lords, in introducing this series of amendments, I covered our responses to the questions. Perhaps I should repeat that politics is the art of the possible. My noble friend Lord Dholakia prayed in aid the 2002 report Breaking the Circle. The difference between that and this Government's consultation, Breaking the Cycle, is that Breaking the Circle did nothing, while we brought in Breaking the Cycle through an amendment. I have tried to find out from my researchers whether it was the Labour Government of 1974 or Ted Heath's Government, who went out of office that year, who brought in the original Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Perhaps that shows what has happened to the attitude towards penal reform in that it has taken 37 years to reform that Act. Successive Governments have ducked this issue. I am proud that this Government have taken the decision to amend that Act. We will monitor the effectiveness of the Act and the impact these changes have on offenders and their ability to secure employment.
	As I said in my opening remarks, I have no objections to campaigners continuing to campaign but when a Government tackle an issue that has been ducked for 37 years, it is entitled to a little of the credit.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for his last comment, which is much appreciated. I thank him for the government amendments that he has proposed on behalf of the large number of offenders who will benefit from them. I do not wish to prolong the discussion other than to say that we will systematically monitor the impact of all these amendments and, if necessary, look again at the legislation. The Government took the brave decision to bring forward these amendments. I thank the Minister, his Bill team and other members of staff who have co-operated with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 185FA (to Amendment 185F) withdrawn.
	Amendments 185FAA to 185FD (to Amendment 185F) not moved.
	Amendment 185F agreed.
	Amendments 185G and 185H
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	185G: After Clause 127, insert the following new Clause-
	"No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes
	Before section 57 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (and after the italic cross-heading before that section) insert-
	"56A No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes
	(1) Section 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (effect of rehabilitation) do not apply-
	(a) in relation to any proceedings in respect of a relevant immigration decision or a relevant nationality decision, or
	(b) otherwise for the purposes of, or in connection with, any such decision.
	(2) In this section-
	"immigration officer" means a person appointed by the Secretary of State as an immigration officer under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971,
	"relevant immigration decision" means any decision, or proposed decision, of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer under or by virtue of the Immigration Acts, or rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 (immigration rules), in relation to the entitlement of a person to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (including, in particular, the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, whether by deportation or otherwise),
	"relevant nationality decision" means any decision, or proposed decision, of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of-
	(a) the British Nationality Act 1981,
	(b) the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, or
	(c) the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996,
	in relation to the good character of a person.
	(3) The references in subsection (2) to the Immigration Acts and to the Acts listed in the definition of "relevant nationality decision" include references to any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or of EU law, which relates to the subject matter of the Act concerned.""
	185H: After Clause 127, insert the following new Clause-
	"Transitional and consequential provision: Chapter 7A
	(1) Section (Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods) applies in relation to convictions or (as the case may be) cautions before the commencement date (as well as in relation to convictions or cautions on or after that date).
	(2) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applies in relation to convictions or cautions before the commencement date as if the amendments and repeals made by section (Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods) had always had effect.
	(3) Where by virtue of subsection (2)-
	(a) a person would, before the commencement date, have been treated for the purposes of the Act of 1974 as a rehabilitated person in respect of a conviction, or
	(b) a conviction would, before that date, have been treated for the purposes of that Act as spent,
	the person or conviction concerned is (subject to any order made by virtue of section 4(4) or 7(4)) to be so treated on and after that date.
	(4) Where by virtue of subsection (2)-
	(a) a person would, before the commencement date, have been treated as mentioned in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1974 in respect of a caution, or
	(b) a caution would, before that date, have been treated for the purposes of that Act as spent,
	the person or caution concerned is (subject to any order made by virtue of paragraph 4 or 6(1) and (4) of that Schedule to that Act) to be so treated on and after that date.
	(5) But-
	(a) no person who, immediately before the commencement date-
	(i) is treated as a rehabilitated person for the purposes of the Act of 1974 in respect of a conviction, or
	(ii) is treated as mentioned in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to that Act in respect of a caution, and
	(b) no conviction or caution which, immediately before the commencement date, is treated for the purposes of that Act as spent,
	is to cease to be so treated merely because of section (Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods).
	(6) Section (Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods) does not apply in relation to alternatives to prosecution given before the commencement date.
	(7) Section (No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes) applies in relation to convictions before the commencement date (as well as in relation to convictions on or after that date).
	(8) Section (No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes) applies as mentioned in subsection (7) above whether or not, immediately before the commencement date-
	(a) the person concerned is treated as a rehabilitated person for the purposes of the Act of 1974 in respect of the conviction, or
	(b) the conviction is treated for the purposes of that Act as spent.
	(9) But section (No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes) does not affect-
	(a) any proceedings begun, but not completed, before the commencement date,
	(b) any applications for immigration or nationality decisions made, but not finally determined, before the commencement date, or
	(c) the validity of any proceedings, or any relevant immigration or nationality decision (within the meaning of section 56A of the UK Borders Act 2007) which is made, before the commencement date.
	(10) Schedule (Rehabilitation of offenders: consequential provision) (consequential provision) has effect.
	(11) Any reference in this section to section (Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods) is to be read as including a reference to Schedule (Rehabilitation of offenders: consequential provision).
	(12) In this section "the commencement date" means such day as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State made by statutory instrument; and different days may be specified for different purposes."
	Amendments 185G and 185H agreed.
	Clause 128 : Offences of threatening with article with blade or point or offensive weapon in public or on school premises
	Amendment 186
	 Moved by Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
	186: Clause 128, page 109, leave out lines 6 to 19

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 186 and 187 which relate to Clause 128 of the Bill, which seeks to extend mandatory prison sentences to children under 18 who carry or threaten with a knife, except in exceptional circumstances.
	There are two main underlying questions here which must be addressed. The first is whether mandatory prison sentences for children are the proper tool for sentencers in terms of proportionality or appropriateness. The second is what are the likely outcomes of such a proposal. For example: will these sanctions actually deter children who carry knives from carrying them; will imprisonment today prevent further knife carrying tomorrow; will our streets be significantly safer in the future; or will they help to address the issues which lead children to carry knives in the first place?
	Mandatory sentencing for certain types of offence for children is, to quote the Justice Secretary,
	"a bit of a leap for the British judicial system",
	a remark that has more than a touch of irony in it. The essence of appropriate, proportionate, constructive sentencing, particularly where children are concerned, is the ability of the sentencer to look at all the circumstances which lead a child to offend in a particular way, and in this specific context mandatory sentences would seem to run contrary to good sentencing practice. Furthermore, when sentencers are considering their decision in such cases, deterrence is not one of the statutory purposes of sentencing for juvenile offenders under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	However, it should give comfort to an anxious public that sentencers in fact already have powers to imprison children convicted of carrying a knife in a public place for a maximum of two years. The point at issue here is that the crucial change this clause would make is to remove the discretionary element for the sentencer. This, I believe, is simply unjust where children are concerned, and is something no sentencer wants. Indeed, the chairman of the youth courts is on record as saying that he is not in favour of this proposed change.
	We know from the most recent MoJ statistics that 85 children were given an immediate custodial sentence for offences involving possession of a knife or offensive weapon in the third quarter of last year. Custody consistently accounts for roughly 9 per cent of all disposals. In other words, the courts already have the necessary powers to deal with the problem and are using them, and they must be able to take into account all the circumstances of a child's offence, and his or her needs, as well.
	Children are not small adults and must not be treated as such. This is where the skill, knowledge and understanding of sentencers are extremely important. In fact, the number of children committing possession-related offences is going down, which suggests that the current sentencing framework is working appropriately, combined with knife-prevention programmes and the like. Therefore, it is clear that the proposed mandatory sentences for this type of crime where children are concerned are both unnecessary and inappropriate. In fact, despite public anxieties about the growth of possession of knives, the statistics issued by the MoJ also show that last year between July and September there were 904 offences involving possession of a knife, which was down 48 per cent on the same period three years ago. This suggests that, once again, the current sentencing framework is getting it right.
	The riots of last year were and are a cause for real concern. We still do not really have a proper understanding of what lies behind those extraordinary events, which are mercifully atypical of public behaviour in this country. Those pockets of inner-urban areas where there is an undue amount of trouble, which buck this overall trend of falling knife crime, are now the subject of debate. I am always impressed by the skills of the police and other agencies in dealing with the issue, and we must work with them to deal still more effectively with it. But the figures overall simply do not justify a knee-jerk response of the introduction of mandatory imprisonment for children as a response to exceptional events like the riots, by simply changing the law as is proposed. Any change of any kind should only be the result of careful, thoughtful inquiry and discussion.
	Equally important for society is to consider what in fact the outcomes of such sentencing are likely to be where children are concerned. Professor Ashworth put it quite bluntly in 2010, when he wrote that the evidence of any deterrence value of mandatory sentences of imprisonment for 16 and 17 year-olds is "non-existent". The Halliday report back in 2001 equally found that there is no evidence to suggest that, for children, there was a link between sentence severity and deterrence effects. Rather, it is the risk of being caught that is most likely to affect behaviour. Indeed, Frances Done, the distinguished chair of the Youth Justice Board, said that the risk of being caught is,
	"about twice as important as the punishment".
	A range of other studies has also come to the same conclusion.
	The fact is that young children are often not capable of looking ahead and assessing the likely long-term effect of carrying a knife, or what that might mean to them and their families. Understanding consequences requires a degree of maturity that such children often simply do not have. Nor do they have independence of mind when they may be surrounded by others who are older who carry knives. Furthermore, there is a consensus among those who work in the field that what are referred to as fear and fashion have a great impact. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, which has funded work in this field that has been highly relevant and effective.
	Three-quarters of the number of children who carry knives to do so to protect themselves rather than to use them aggressively on another person. They do so because they are scared. It is a really sad thought that children should feel that way in this country. The corollary is that it becomes as fashionable to carry a knife as it is to have the latest mobile phone or iPod.
	Complex social problems underlie knife carrying, and we must continue to do more to address them. That involves a lot more education and awareness-raising about the consequences. Mandatory four-month prison sentences involving two months in custody and two in the community on licence will do little to deal with those problems. That will achieve a purely punitive response. Although punishment is one element in the armoury of the sentencer, it must be balanced with the other purposes in sentencing for children, as every judge or magistrate knows.
	I reiterate that short mandatory sentences for carrying or threatening with a knife is punishment as political gesture, which has little chance of achieving anything positive. Difficult as I know it is for him, but in the interests of justice, I urge my noble friend to look again at Clause 128. I beg to move.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I support the amendments moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, but I would like to go further than she has. If the Committee accepts her amendments, as I very much hope that we will, we might as well go a little further and get rid of Clause 128 altogether, because it serves no useful purpose.
	I start with subsection (1). Carrying an offensive weapon in public has been an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act since 1953-a long time ago. It carries a maximum sentence of four years. Incidentally, those were the days when the whole of one year's legislation could be included in a single volume of ordinary size, which one could read in bed, if one was so disposed. Compare that to what we have today: eight enormous volumes which one can hardly lift at all. That is by the way.
	In 2003, the Court of Appeal issued some guidance in which it said that if the offensive weapon is used to threaten someone, the sentence should be at the upper end of the scale, approaching four years. I ask a simple question. What can be the purpose of creating a new offence of threatening with an offensive weapon when it is already adequately covered by the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 with exactly the same maximum sentence? Surely a sound principle of legislation in the criminal field, as in other fields of life, known as Occam's razor, is that offences should not be multiplied without good reason. I can think of no good reason for enacting Clause 128(1). If the noble Lord can think of some good reason, I hope that he will let us know what it is.
	Exactly the same applies to subsection (2). Carrying a knife in a public place or on school premises has been an offence since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It also carries a maximum sentence of four years. Again I ask: what can be the purpose of creating a new offence of threatening with a knife when it is already covered by the 1988 Act with exactly the same maximum sentence?
	It would surely be fanciful to suppose that by the addition of the words "threatening" or "threatens" in the description of the offence anybody is going to be deterred in real life. In real life, those who carry knives do not pay much attention to what we say here in Parliament. The courts already have ample powers under the existing law to deal with those who threaten with knives. Let us leave it to the judges, because nothing more is needed.
	There are other objections to Clause 128 on which the noble Baroness has touched. As with Clause 114, the sentence is mandatory-that is how it is described in the Explanatory Notes. To my mind, a mandatory sentence means one which the judge must pass, such as the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. However, this is not a mandatory sentence in that sense at all. The judge has discretion to do what is just in a particular case, as in all other cases. There is no "must" about it. So why use the word "must"? Why call it a mandatory sentence when it is no such thing? Why, while I am about it, does the clause refer rather coyly to an "appropriate custodial sentence" when what it means is a minimum sentence? The only reason that I can think of is that "must" and "mandatory" are intended to give the impression that the Government are being tough on sentencing-it makes a better headline. I deplore this new-fangled style of introducing so-called mandatory sentences which are not mandatory sentences in the ordinary sense of the word. In a criminal statute, above all, words should mean what they say, neither more nor less.
	Finally, I of course accept that knife crime is a very serious problem, ending, as it does all too often, with a charge of murder. However, the way to solve the problem is not by creating more and more new offences. The way ahead is surely to follow the example of a remarkable woman, Karen McCluskey, a former nurse and qualified forensic psychiatrist. She saw that the only way to reduce knife crime among the young was to work with the gangs among which they lived, moved and had their being. With the help of the Glasgow police, she did just that. I shall not go into the details; they are all to be found in a copy of the Guardian of 20 December last year. It is enough to say that, as a result of her efforts, violent offending among the 500 gang members in eastern Glasgow fell by 46 per cent and knife crime by an astonishing 85 per cent. We should follow her example and not spend our time creating new offences which add nothing to the existing law. It is good that, as we have heard, the level of knife crime is falling. If we think that we are accelerating that process by enacting Clause 128, all I can say is that we are deceiving ourselves.

Lord Bach: My Lords, knife crime has been a scourge on communities throughout Britain. I think my party, when in government, did quite a lot to tackle this appalling problem and yet it persists. Of course, some would say that the answer is to deal with the causes of such crime, particularly where young people are concerned. Yet the Government say that the answer is to create a new crime that is entirely covered, as the noble and learned Lord has just made abundantly clear, by existing crimes. For my part, I cannot see any logic behind it at all. Frankly, someone who uses a bladed weapon to threaten another person is guilty of a very serious criminal act, but that act is covered by existing statute law. More than that, there is guidance on sentencing and, of course, there is case law.
	For our part, we will not be drawn tonight into the game that we fear the Government are playing with this legislation. It is legislative public relations, no more and no less. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been made so well by the two previous speakers. I wonder whether he is as proud of this piece of legislation as he was the last piece of legislation concerning rehabilitation of offenders. I rather feel that he is not.

Lord McNally: My Lords, we believe that currently there is no offence that specifically targets the behaviour covered by this clause; namely, the most serious of threatening behaviour where people carrying a knife or an offensive weapon use it to threaten and cause,
	"immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person".
	We believe that we are sending a clear message to those who behave in that way that they cannot expect leniency.
	I understand, and very much respect, where my noble friend Lady Linklater is coming from. I want to make two points, one of which I have made before to the noble Lord-I am always tempted to say "my noble friend"-Lord Judd, who I am glad to see in his place. I make them to the noble Baroness as well. I understand that these under 18 year-olds, these children, may have various and complex difficulties in their personal lives. I did not. I was brought up on an ICI estate, where there were children who had difficult and complex lives but they did not adopt crime or violence. My simple point is that even children have choices and many do not adopt a path of violence.
	I speak as the parent of three young children who have just come through their late teens. I know the fear in the hearts of parents of teenagers who go out on a Friday or Saturday night. The fear is always there that one piece of bad luck, one act of disrespect, will end up in their child being severely injured or perhaps even killed by someone carrying a knife. We are addressing that fear. All speakers have acknowledged that knife crime is a serious problem. I am as pleased as anyone that there has been some decrease in knife crime, but I do not think that it does any harm, particularly in the 16 to 17 year-old age group, to do a little bit of public relations and to send out a message that it is not fashionable-it might even be plain stupid-to carry a knife, to brandish it and to threaten people with it. I do not belittle any of the examples that have been given of people who deal with the problems of violence in our society but, in putting forward this law, we are addressing a real issue and making it clear that knife crime is unacceptable. It is not the first example of a minimum sentence. Nor is it the first example of a minimum sentence for 16 and 17 year-olds. There is a minimum sentence of three years for certain firearms offences committed by 16 and 17 year-olds. That measure was brought in by the previous Labour Government in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	The Government believe that it is right to have minimum sentences specified in law where a certain offence warrants a strong and clear message that a certain type of behaviour will not be tolerated in a decent and law-abiding society. That is why we are legislating for the courts to be able to apply a minimum custodial sentence of four months' detention and training for 16 and 17 year-olds. However, as was pointed out, the legislation builds in discretion concerning the welfare of the offender, which is sensible. The amendments tabled by my noble friends would remove the minimum sentence not only for 16 and 17 year-olds but for adults. The Government cannot accept them. They would undermine our firm intention to stamp out these crimes. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble and learned Lord will not oppose the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I listened with interest and not a great deal of surprise to what my noble friend said. We talked about fear and fashion, and I will reiterate that anybody who works with young people knows that the predominant cause is fear. We need to address why these things happen. It is not at all likely that having such a new sentence on the statute book will do anything to deter young people. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, what we do and say in this House will not percolate down, or mean very much, to a 16 or 17 year- old. However, taking account of the hour-I am about to catch my sleeper to Scotland-I will certainly not pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 186 withdrawn.
	Amendment 187 not moved.
	Debate on whether Clause 128 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I will not press the point now, but I shall certainly return to it.
	Clause 128 agreed.
	Amendment 187ZA
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	187ZA: Before Schedule 22, insert the following new Schedule-
	"Rehabilitation of Offenders: consequential provisionPart 1Rehabilitation of Offenders: generalRehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: England and Wales
	1 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
	2 In section 1(4)(a) (references in Act to a conviction) for "Great Britain" substitute "England and Wales".
	3 In section 2(5) (rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings) for "Great Britain" substitute "England and Wales".
	4 Omit section 3 (special provision with respect to certain disposals by children's hearings under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968).
	5 In section 4(1)(a) (effect of rehabilitation) for "Great Britain" substitute "England and Wales".
	6 (1) Section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(a) for "Great Britain" substitute "England and Wales".
	(3) In subsection (3) for "Great Britain" substitute "England and Wales".
	7 Omit section 8(8) (defamation actions: application of section to Scotland).
	8 In section 8A(2)(d) (definition of "caution") after "Wales" insert "and which is not an alternative to prosecution (within the meaning of section 8AA)".
	9 (1) Section 9 (unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3) omit "(or, in Scotland, the accused person)".
	(3) In subsection (8) omit ", in England and Wales,".
	10 After section 10(1) (orders) insert-
	"(1A) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order under any provision of this Act includes power-
	(a) to make different provision for different purposes, and
	(b) to make incidental, consequential, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.
	(1B) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 5(6) includes power to make consequential provision which amends or repeals any provision of this Act or any other enactment."
	11 Omit Schedule 1 (service disciplinary convictions referred to in section 6(6)(bb) of that Act).
	Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: Scotland
	12 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
	13 In section 1(4)(a) (references in Act to a conviction) for "Great Britain" substitute "Scotland".
	14 In section 2(5) (rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings) for "Great Britain" substitute "Scotland".
	15 In section 4(1)(a) (effect of rehabilitation) for "Great Britain" substitute "Scotland".
	16 (1) Section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2)(a) for "Great Britain" substitute "Scotland".
	(3) In subsection (3) for "Great Britain" substitute "Scotland".
	17 (1) Section 9 (unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3) for "defendant (or, in Scotland, the accused person)" substitute "accused person".
	(3) Omit subsection (8).
	Part 2Rehabilitation of Offenders: consequential repeals
	
		
			 Short title Extent of repeal 
			 Armed Forces Act 1976 In Schedule 9, paragraph 21. 
			 Criminal Law Act 1977 In section 63(2), the words "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;". 
			  In Schedule 12, the entry relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. 
			 Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 In Schedule 7, paragraph 134. 
			 Armed Forces Act 1981 In Schedule 4, paragraph 2(2). 
			 Criminal Justice Act 1982 In Schedule 14, paragraph 37. 
			 Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 In Schedule 3, paragraph 49. 
			 Mental Health Act 1983 In Schedule 4, paragraph 39. 
			 Criminal Justice Act 1988 In Schedule 8, paragraph 9(b). 
			 Children Act 1989 In Schedule 14, paragraph 36(7). 
			 Criminal Justice Act 1991 In section 68, paragraph (c) (but not the word "and" at the end of the paragraph). 
			  In Schedule 8, paragraph 5. 
			  In Schedule 12, paragraph 22(2). 
			 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 In Schedule 9, paragraph 11. 
			  In Schedule 10, paragraph 30. 
			 Armed Forces Act 1996 Section 13(3) and (4). 
			  Schedule 4. 
			 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 In Schedule 8, paragraph 35. 
			 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 In Schedule 4, paragraph 6. 
			 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 In Schedule 9, paragraph 48(3) to (10). 
			  In Schedule 11, paragraph 13. 
			 Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 In Schedule 7, paragraph 49. 
			 Criminal Justice Act 2003 In Part 1 of Schedule 32, paragraph 18(3). 
			 Armed Forces Act 2006 In Schedule 16, paragraphs 65(4) to (8) and 66. 
			 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 In Part 1 of Schedule 4, paragraph 21. 
			  In Schedule 10, paragraphs 2 and 5. 
			 Policing and Crime Act 2009 Section 18(2)." 
		
	
	Amendment 187ZA agreed.
	Schedule 22 : Knives and offensive weapons: minor and consequential amendments
	Amendment 187A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Amendment 187B
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	187B: Schedule 22, page 230, line 8, leave out "1A" and insert "1A(5)"

Lord McNally: My Lords, the point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying somebody else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish them.

Noble Lords: 187B.

Lord McNally: Oh! I have jumped a group. Sorry. I hope I did not shock my noble friend Lady Miller.
	Amendments 187B, 187C and 187D are being made consequential to the application of a minimum custodial sentence of a four-month detention and training order to 16 and 17 year-olds convicted of offences of threatening another person with a bladed article or weapon causing risk of serious physical harm. Amendments 187B and 187C amend references in the insertion to Section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. These amendments are consequential to the debate we have just had and form part of the new offences in Clause 128. I beg to move.
	Amendment 187B agreed.
	Amendments 187C and 187D
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	187C: Schedule 22, page 230, line 10, leave out "139AA" and insert "139AA(7)"
	187D: Schedule 22, page 230, line 34, at end insert-
	"16A (1) Section 142A(4)(b) (purposes of sentencing: offenders under 18) is amended as follows.
	(2) Before sub-paragraph (i) insert-
	"(zi) section 1A(5) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (minimum sentence for offence of threatening with offensive weapon in public),".
	(3) After sub-paragraph (i) insert-
	"(ia) section 139AA(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (minimum sentence for offence of threatening with article with blade or point or offensive weapon),"."
	Amendments 187C and 187D agreed.
	Schedule 22, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 129 agreed.
	Schedule 23 agreed.
	Clause 130 : Offence of squatting in a residential building
	Amendment 188
	 Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
	188: Clause 130, page 111, line 39, at end insert-
	"( ) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for 6 months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass."

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I realise the hour, but I will need to detain the Committee for some time on this clause because it is very serious and seeks to criminalise a large group of people. It was not debated in Committee in the other place, so I feel that this House needs to give it its full scrutiny. I am very pleased that so many of your Lordships are still in their places at this time of night to debate this issue. I have tabled this amendment and given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill because I think the Committee will need to question very deeply the Government's claim that they need to criminalise the vulnerable homeless who are seeking shelter.
	Let me say at the outset that I-like all noble Lords, I am sure-feel that a home should be sacrosanct and that any violation of it is totally unacceptable. An Englishman's or Englishwoman's home may not be a castle, but it should be so in law, and so it is. Despite the many misconceptions peddled by the press and others, it is already a criminal offence to squat in someone's home. The instances of squatters trying to establish themselves in someone's home are minuscule, but when it happens homeowners can be quite clear that they can ask the person or people to leave, and should that not happen immediately they should call the police. The police should remove the squatters and deal with the matter as a criminal offence. The same applies to a home that has been bought into which someone is intending to move. In both cases, the property owner is protected by Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which was updated by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It is already a criminal offence to refuse when asked to leave someone's home or a house that they are about to move into, to cause criminal damage either to gain entry or once inside the property, and to use utilities without paying for them. The police have a clear duty to enforce that. That is just to be absolutely clear. When the Minister began to speak to this amendment, he implied that the law was not sufficient in this case, and my first question to him is: why do the Government think that?
	My amendment is suggested by the charity Crisis. Its purpose is to probe whether it might be better to extend what is covered by Section 7. The amendment proposes that anyone squatting in a house that has been empty for more than six months-not anyone's home, but a house that has been empty-and where there have been no material steps to bring it back into use would not be committing a criminal offence. What we need more clarity about are empty houses-not homes, but empty houses; for example, because they are going to be redeveloped or because someone has bought them and is waiting for the property market to pick up. It would be better to debate the link between homelessness and empty houses in the context of a housing Bill. I am sure the Minister has read the Crisis report of September 2011, Squatting: A Homelessness Issue, which urges that squatting should be discussed in the context of housing, homelessness and welfare.
	Crisis commissioned independent research that shows that 41 per cent of homeless squatters report mental health needs; 34 per cent have been in care; 42 per cent suffer physical ill health or a disability; 47 per cent have experienced drug dependency; 21 per cent self-harm; and 15 per cent have a learning disability. On all these measures, homeless squatters are more vulnerable than the single homeless population as a whole, and 90 per cent of homeless squatters have also slept rough.
	These are the people whom the Government are seeking to criminalise. I submit that criminalisation will not solve the problems faced by either these homeless individuals or by our society as a whole, which has a housing crisis, with over 600,000 people homeless and 350,000 empty properties-which is, as George Clarke graphically described in his Channel 4 series "The Great British Property Scandal", equivalent to a city the size of Leeds.
	To have a rational debate about squatting and empty properties, we need to debunk some of the myths. The Crisis report makes plain that there are a lot of myths around squatting; for example, that of the eastern European squatting gangs invading people's homes, which, according to the Met policeman responsible for squatting policy, does not happen. What we are dealing with are people who, for whatever reason, have lost their home and are on a route back to housing.
	Of course there are a few who choose to squat as a political statement, the so-called lifestyle squatters. As the historian Colin Ward says in his history of the subject:
	"There has always been a distinction between squatting as a political demonstration and squatting as a personal solution to a housing problem. In the first instance the intention is for propagandist purposes, to be noticed. In the second the hope is to be inconspicuous and blend into the landscape".
	The Occupy squats are there to be seen and heard. Other squatters are trying in nearly all cases to be quiet neighbours and keep themselves to themselves.
	There are a number of reasons why I am challenging Clause 130. First, it is no way to deal with the vulnerable homeless. Secondly, alone in this Bill, which is all about cutting costs, it will pass substantial additional costs on to the Ministry of Justice and eventually the taxpayer. I know how anxious my noble friend is for the Government to reduce costs and for his department to reduce its budget. Thirdly, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association, the Metropolitan Police Service and Crisis all believe that it would be much more sensible for the Government to focus on ensuring that the current law, which is quite adequate, is enforced, rather than to create a new criminal offence.
	Interestingly, that position has also been taken by Annington Holdings plc, one of the largest owners of private property in the UK, which describes enforcement as the crux of the problem. It is in empty premises unoccupied for months or years, intended at some time for redevelopment, where people are likely to squat. For the owners of those properties, the housing associations and so on, the recourse is of course civil remedy. I accept that large-scale landlords who have several, perhaps dozens, of empty homes that they intend to redevelop find it very annoying to have to have recourse to civil remedy if they find that one or more of their properties has been squatted.
	As a former leader of the local authority in Somerset, I have seen this issue from the other side and I have some sympathy. Housing associations have been affected, as have many private sector developers, but the fact is that civil remedy is not difficult. It is tried, tested and backed up by a very experienced bailiff system, which is what the civil law is there for. One of the peculiarities of the proposed legislation is that it is likely to lengthen the time that it takes to evict squatters. Prosecuted under civil law, squatters can be removed with an interim possession order in just a couple of days but going through the CPS could take weeks or even months.
	In March 2011, the Government made a very good move when they made the position clearer in a joint initiative between the MoJ and the Housing Minister, Grant Shapps. They issued updated guidance called Advice on Dealing with Squatters in your Home, which makes it clear that it is an offence for a squatter to fail to leave a residential property when asked to do so. I would ask the Minister what advice to the Government changed after March 2011. It was not the advice from the police who, in their formal response to the MoJ consultation, said:
	"Criminalisation of squatting and subsequent enforcement would have an impact on policing, in terms of community relations, local policing objectives and cost".
	They are not in favour of the change before us tonight. It was not on the advice of the enforcement agencies.
	I do not know whether the Minister has had time to read the opinion of Claire Sandbrook, who is one of 60 authorised High Court enforcement officers and chair of Shergroup, which is a leading legal services company. She said:
	"'The options put forward in the paper also have one massive omission-the option of enhancing the civil enforcement route for dealing with squatters. Certainly, to my knowledge, there have been no complaints as to how effectively HCEOs deal with squatters once the cases are put in their hands. HCEOs deal with squatter evictions quickly, efficiently, safely and without cost to the public purse once they are in a position to take control of the situation ... The trick would surely be to ensure that cases can be processed and actioned far more speedily through existing civil procedures".
	The fact is that the police are neither resourced nor trained to take on the duties that the bailiffs are undertaking. They could do so only at considerable cost and with other vital law and order priorities being downgraded as a result.
	What will happen if we leave Clause 130 as it is? I ask your Lordships to consider whether it would mean more empty homes are brought back into use quickly by housing associations and local authorities. No, it will not because the reason that those homes are not being renovated and brought back into use is almost always financial. Will it make it easier for private landlords to gain possession of empty properties? It will not make it any easier or simpler; it will just shift the financial burden from the civil procedure effectively to the taxpayer because the time spent on it will be time spent by the police instead of the bailiffs.
	The Government's regulatory impact assessment envisages spending something between £3 million and £10 million more per year to enforce this. That is a very conservative estimate. I have seen others which estimate the sum to be nearer £20 million a year. The impact assessment does not cover the added costs to local authorities that presentation of numbers of vulnerable homeless will present-somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000-nor of children who will need special care arrangements. I think that taxpayers will ask who has benefited from this change. It will not be home owners, who are already protected.
	I must say that the Government have made an excellent start on tackling the empty homes problem. Only in December last year, for the first time a £20 million fund was announced to provide support for single homeless people. The Housing Minister, Grant Shapps, then announced a review of barriers to investment in rented homes, and the Government introduced their empty homes strategy, when my honourable friend the Minister Andrew Stunell said:
	"The number of empty homes in this country is a national scandal ... yet for every two families that need a home there is one standing empty. That is why I've made tackling the blight of empty homes a top priority for the Coalition ... we've made £150 million available to help councils and charities take radical action".
	All the building blocks are in place to solve the empty homes issue and make squatting a thing of the past. That is the route I believe we should be taking. I do not think we should criminalise the vulnerable homeless and we should not be creating a worse housing crisis.
	I admit that we have to solve a knotty and difficult problem, but the period between now and Report is when your Lordships need to look in depth at these issues and not at Clause 130 as it is before us tonight. I beg to move.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment which has been moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I recall how encouraging it was to see the coalition Government, when they came into office, making it clear that new laws were not the answer. Speaking at the Liberal Democrat annual conference in September 2010, the Minister said:
	"Labour created thousands of new offences and used a steady stream of criminal justice and anti-terrorism laws to ratchet up the powers of the state and to diminish the rights of the citizen. This coalition comes into office to reverse that tidal flow of laws ...Which is why my department, the Ministry of Justice, will now check each new criminal offence. And if we don't need it, it will be blocked".
	In the light of that admirable sentiment, I wonder if I could ask the Minister why, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, he still feels that this would be a good new offence to introduce.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having put this issue before the Committee. I am not sure that I see some of the points she made as quite as clear-cut as she suggests they are. There can be tremendous complexities and very real, painful stories behind houses that stand empty for longer than six months. There may indeed be social issues that in themselves need to be addressed. But what I think she is absolutely right about is that if a high percentage of the people who are squatting in the way described are particularly vulnerable with a disproportionate number of problems, for the life of me I cannot see how adding criminalisation to all the other complexities that they face so inadequately will help them to sort out their lives. It seems to be a cynical and cold-blooded approach. I have moments, when listening to the Minister, when I fear that he has got embarrassed about liberal principles and feels he must distance himself over and over again. I certainly do not recognise any liberal principles in this piece of legislation.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Committee owes a debt of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having brought this difficult subject to our attention. It is not her fault that we are discussing it in the watches of the night and she has no need to apologise for taking the time of the Committee in explaining her point of view. As she said, the provision on squatting was introduced in another place with very little opportunity for scrutiny even on Report. The debate was pretty short. So this represents the first chance, and I hope not the last, for Parliament to get its teeth into these proposals.
	Prima facie, the new criminal offence will demonise the absolute poorest, those with mental health issues and those who, frankly, have no other option than to shelter in properties that are, for the most part, unfit for habitation. Of course, we take the view, as does everyone else of sensible mind, that lifestyle squatting is quite beyond the pale and absolutely unacceptable-we oppose it as a principle as much as anyone else.
	However, there is a big difference, as the noble Baroness demonstrated, between those few who jump carelessly into properties owned by others with the intent of abusing-severely abusing in some cases-the rights of ownership and those who have no other option unless they want to live on the streets. Anyone who lives in central London, for example, knows that the number of people living on the streets is going up as we speak. A large number of those people have no doubt, from time to time, "squatted" in the terms of what will become this legislation.
	Our media, of course, are quite happy to remind us of the instances of outrageous behaviour by lifestyle squatters, but they are curiously quiet when it comes to telling us about, for example, a veteran with severe post-traumatic stress disorder who is addicted to drugs and alcohol and shelters in a property riddled with asbestos. Is he the sort of squatter whom the Government are out to get?
	Squatting for the main part is already illegal and, in most instances, criminal, too. The Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it a criminal offence for any person to leave premises when required to do so by "a displaced residential occupier" or "protected intended occupier" of the premises. Parts 55.1 and 55.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules allow for owners to evict someone in a residence they do not occupy. Moreover, an interim possession order, backed up by powers in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, means that a criminal offence is committed if an individual does not leave within 24 hours of such an expedited order being granted. So given that all homeowners are protected by the criminal law, unless their property has lain empty for a substantial period and no one is imminently moving in, where does this need for reform of the law lie?
	Perhaps a hint came in the signature leaks to the media. A series of reports leading up to the unveiling of this government policy focused on the very sad case of Dr Oliver Cockerell and his pregnant wife who, the ministry briefed, were thrown out of their house by squatters. However, in that case, it emerged that the police, for once, had wrongly stated that the case of the doctor and his wife was a civil issue and not one for them. In fact, as Mr Cockerell and his wife were protected intended occupiers, it is more than arguable that the police should have intervened under the current law. Their failure to do so was not atypical and the position does not require the kind of legislative, heavy-boots intervention that the Government intend.
	The Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill that we are debating tonight both deal in parts with impecunious and very vulnerable people. The two Bills together will increase the number of people who have to resort to living in condemned housing out of desperation. We know, thanks to social welfare researchers, that there is a significant prevalence of mental health problems, learning difficulties and substance addiction among those who are homeless. In fact, the Government's own impact assessment, referred to in passing by the noble Baroness, tells us who is forced to squat. It said:
	"Local authorities and homelessness ... charities may face increased pressure on their services if more squatters are arrested/convicted and/or deterred from squatting. Local authorities may be required to provide alternative accommodation for these individuals and could also face costs related to increases in rough sleeping in their areas. An increase in demand for charities' services"-
	food or shelter-
	"may negatively impact current charity service users".
	It goes on:
	"There may also be a cost to society if this option is perceived to be unfair and/or leads to increases in rough sleeping".
	When the costs are identified, as the noble Baroness said, they are reasonably substantial.
	We do not believe that the Government have a clue how many people actually squat. The reason for bringing in this new piece of criminal legislation is pure populism. It is demonisation of the poor by another method. We had concerns and said so on Report in another place. Those have been reinforced, frankly, by the way in which the Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill have been carried through by the Government. We have heard much more about opposition to the plans as they now stand.
	I am not saying that we agree precisely with the amendment of the noble Baroness. It may be that six months is too little. I hope that when she withdraws her amendment tonight and there is time between now and Report there will be some discussion as to what the right amount of time should be and whether the wording is appropriate.
	However, if the noble Baroness were to bring back her amendment in a different form, perhaps with a longer period of time, we would be sorely tempted to support it on Report. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in her brief intervention. We were criticised incredibly strongly and sometimes with justification for bringing in too many new criminal offences by just those people who are bringing them in now. This debate and the previous one introduced two new criminal offences that are frankly not needed. What is the explanation for that?
	It is very telling that the Metropolitan Police, the Bar Council and the Law Society, none of which are natural friends of the squatting community, all think that bringing this particular legislation is completely unnecessary. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord's justification for it.

Lord McNally: My Lords, beware the caveat about being sorely tempted to support the amendment. We will wait until Report to see how sorely tempted the noble Lord is. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that this is a knotty and difficult problem, and so it is, but let me put it simply; the Government believe that the criminal law can and should go further to protect homeowners and occupiers. There should be a specific criminal offence that protects people from those who squat in their residential buildings.
	Many residential property owners have described the anguish that they experience when discovering that squatters have occupied their properties. I say to my noble friend that local authorities too have expressed concern about this problem. The huge expense and incredible hassle of getting squatters evicted has been described.
	The Government believe the harm that can be caused by squatters is unacceptable and must be stopped. The new offence would be committed where a person is in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered it as such, knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser and is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
	The whole point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying someone else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish, sell or let the property.
	The Government's view is that the proposed new offence is entirely proportionate. There are many reasons why a residential building might be left empty for longer than six months without any steps being taken to sell, let or refurbish the property. As the noble Baroness has acknowledged, the Government are bringing more empty homes back into use and addressing the shortage of affordable housing as a top priority. Allowing squatters to occupy other people's properties cannot be part of that answer. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I warmly thank those who have spoken in this debate tonight. I thought that the quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was incredibly apposite and absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that there are some very complex issues around houses that stand empty. However, I come back to the initial issue-someone's home, or the home they intend to live in, is protected, as it is a criminal offence for a squatter to be in it. I still feel that the Minister's reply did not sufficiently recognise that issue, but we will not get to the root of that this evening. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, gave us a real-life example, which pointed up exactly what we should be concerned about here.
	Some of the things that I hope I will be able to discuss with the Minister and his department-which I know my noble friend is also concerned about-include the practicalities if the Government bring this in, such as the costs. Given the estimate of between 20,000 and 50,000 people squatting, what are the practicalities for local authorities being able to suddenly rehouse those sorts of numbers? The Minister said that this was about sending a clear message. I would just like to leave the Committee this evening with this thought; there are many ways of sending a message, and government guidance is a very good start. That is where the Government were in 2011, as I mentioned, and is something to build on. There is a lot to discuss between now and Report and I shall certainly bring this issue back. I welcome the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we might discuss the wording of a more appealing amendment. I am sure we will debate this again, hopefully at a better hour of the day. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 188 withdrawn.
	Amendment 188A
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	188A: Clause 130, page 112, line 15, at end insert-
	"( ) In section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (entry for purpose of arrest etc)-
	(a) in subsection (1)(c), after sub-paragraph (v) insert-
	"(vi) section 130 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (squatting in a residential building);";
	(b) in subsection (3), for "or (iv)" substitute ", (iv) or (vi)".
	( ) In Schedule 10 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 53(b)."

Lord McNally: My Lords, these are consequential amendments to debates that we have already had. Clause 130 creates a new offence of squatting in residential buildings, and I will explain the consequential amendment needed there. Rather oddly in the same grouping, Amendment 188B contains the transitional provisions for Clause 131, which deals with reasonable force for the purpose of self-defence. Amendment 188A amends the provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that the police have the necessary powers to enter and search a residential building for the purpose of arresting someone for the new squatting offence.
	Such an amendment is necessary because the offence that we are creating is summary only, which means that it can be tried only in the magistrates' court. PACE does not normally provide the police with the powers to enter and search premises for a summary-only offence, unless a specific provision is included in Section 17(1)(c) of PACE. This amendment adds this specific provision to PACE.
	The amendment to Clause 131 regarding self-defence makes transitional provision in relation to the amendments made to Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The amendment will ensure that the amendments that we are making to that section can be applied retrospectively where appropriate, making matters simpler for the courts. The amendment to Clause 135 is minor and technical. I beg to move.
	Amendment 188A agreed.
	Clause 130, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 131 : Reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc
	Amendment 188B
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	188B: Clause 131, page 112, line 29, at end insert-
	"( ) Paragraph 27 of Schedule 27 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (which provides for section 76 of that Act to apply whenever the alleged offence took place, but not in relation to certain proceedings if they began, or the arraignment took place, before that section comes into force) applies to any amendment made by this section to section 76 of that Act as it applies to that section, but as if references to the date on which that section comes into force were references to the date on which the amendment comes into force."
	Amendment 188B agreed.
	Clause 131, as amended, agreed.
	Amendment 189
	 Moved by Lord Faulkner of Worcester
	189: After Clause 131, insert the following new Clause-
	"Amendment to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964
	In section 5 (other offences relating to scrap metal) after subsection (2) insert-
	"(3) If any scrap metal dealer accepts or makes payment in cash, that dealer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(4) When deciding the level of fine to be charged under subsections (1) to (3), a court may take into account-
	(a) the value of the scrap metal in question;
	(b) the provenance of the scrap metal in question;
	(c) the compliance of the scrap metal dealer with the provisions of sections 1 to 3 of this Act generally; and
	(d) any other factors which the court deems to be relevant.""

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I move Amendment 189 not with the purpose of having a lengthy debate on scrap metal theft and the move towards a cashless transaction regime tonight, but in order to give the Minister the opportunity to explain to the Committee what the Government intend to do with this issue at Report. If it is the Government's intention on Report to move their own amendment on becoming cashless, I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment later. I thank the other noble Lords who have signed this amendment: the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whose perseverance and endurance I pay tribute to by seeing him in his place here this evening.
	This is a very important issue. It is part of a package of measures which I hope that the Government are going to take on board in relation to the epidemic of scrap metal theft. It may be that tonight the Minister could also say something about what the Government intend to do about powers of entry and closure of premises where there is suspicion that they contain stolen metal. If, in addition to that, he can also confirm that the Government are intending to bring forward substantive legislation in the new Session to update the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, my cup genuinely will runneth over. I beg to move.

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing this amendment to highlight this important issue? Like him, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for his perseverance in staying here at this late hour for this matter. The right reverend Prelate was one of the earliest who came to see me to highlight this issue, particularly as it related to churches. However, as so many have said before, it is not just the churches, but it is the power companies, the transport companies and so many others. I do not want to go through the wide range of people who have been affected by it.
	The noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 26 January that the Government would be bringing forward amendments in the Bill to strengthen the law in this area. I repeated this as a Written Ministerial Statement in this House. In that Written Statement, my right honourable friend indicated that the government amendments would create a new criminal offence to prohibit cash payments to purchase scrap metal and significantly increase the fines for offences under the existing Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 which regulates that industry. This forms part of a coherent package of measures that we are taking to tackle metal theft. We aim to deter both thieves and metal dealers through more focused enforcement and tougher penalties. We will cut out the reward for metal thieves by banning cash payments for scrap metal and reducing the incentives for dealers to trade in stolen metals by developing a more rigorous licensing regime. These amendments are but a first step, albeit an important one. I underline that to the noble Lord.
	Obviously, I welcome the support of the noble Lord and while I am sure that he is going to withdraw his amendment, he asked a crucial question about powers of entry and what we should do there. There are problems. As the noble Lord knows, Section 6(1) of the 1964 Act-an Act that he and I have both described on various occasions as being past its sell-by date-already provides police with a power of entry to premises registered as a scrap metal dealers under that Act. Section 6(2) further provides a power of entry to any officer of the local authority duly authorised in writing to enter a place for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is being used as a scrap metal store and, as such, officers of the local authority have a power of entry to premises not registered under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act.
	It is intended that the national metal theft task force will visit every single registered and unregistered scrap metal yard in the course of its routine business. One element of that visit will be to ensure registration under the 1964 Act. As such, we expect that the number of scrap metal dealers that are not registered under the Act, and consequently where the police do not have the power of entry, will be greatly reduced. In addition, we are actively looking into the option of widening police powers as part of our amendments. If that is something that we can deal with later on Report, we will do so.
	I hope that, with those assurances about what we are definitely going to do and what we hope to do if we see a way to do it, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I want to make clear to him, though, that we have a coherent package, we want to get ahead of this and we want to look at further amendments to the 1964 Act in due course. I hope that we can get, as I put it, a coherent package that we can bring before the House.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has dealt with me so courteously since I first tabled this amendment immediately after Second Reading, which seems to be a very long time ago now. He has done exactly what he said on that occasion and has given the undertaking that on Report the Government will table an amendment on cashless payments. He has also given us some hope on entry to premises.
	I hope that the Government will find time for this in the next Session, will not be deflected from unnecessary legislation that clogs up this House and will deal with something really important: the problem of scrap metal theft. On the basis of the assurances that the Minister has given today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 189 withdrawn.
	Clauses 132 and 133 agreed.
	Clause 134 : Commencement
	Amendments 190 to 195 not moved.
	Clause 134 agreed.
	Clause 135 : Extent
	Amendments 195ZA to 195A
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	195ZA: Clause 135, page 114, line 3, after "59(2))," insert-
	"( ) sections (No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes) and (Transitional and consequential provision: Chapter 7A),"
	195ZB: Clause 135, page 114, line 6, at end insert ", subject to subsections (5A) and (6).
	(5A) In Chapter 7A of Part 3-
	(a) section (Establishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods) extends to England and Wales only,
	(b) paragraphs 1 to 11 of Schedule (Rehabilitation of offenders: consequential provision) extend to England and Wales only,
	(c) paragraphs 12 to 17 of that Schedule extend to Scotland only, and
	(d) Part 2 of that Schedule extends to England and Wales only."
	195A: Clause 135, page 114, line 7, leave out subsection (6) and insert-
	"(6) Subsection (5) applies to section 131 only so far as the provisions amended extend to England and Wales or apply in relation to service offences."
	Amendments 195ZA to 195A agreed.
	Amendment 196 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
	Clause 135, as amended, agreed.
	Clause 136 agreed.
	Clause 137 : Short title
	Amendment 196A
	 Moved by Lord Ramsbotham
	196A: Clause 137, page 114, line 21, leave out "Punishment" and insert "Rehabilitation"

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I can at this time of night. I begin with two wishes and a disappointment. I wish that I had been able to raise this amendment at the start of the Bill, but it is the custom of the House that amendments to the Title are taken at the end rather than the beginning. I also wish that he wording of my Amendment 196A had appeared also for Amendment 197, since they are actually both the same.
	The disappointment is one that I declared at Second Reading: I was told that the Bill left the Ministry of Justice entitled the "Legal Aid, Sentencing and Rehabilitation of Offenders Bill" but emerged from No. 10 with the word "punishment" in the Title instead of "rehabilitation". I knew that I was not alone when I read in the House Magazine what the Minister himself said about this to the Liberal Democrat annual party conference. I also note his inclusion of the word "rehabilitation" in Amendment 198.
	In Committee, the Minister has explained several times that the Government's apparent lack of courage in accepting amendments put forward in the spirit of the rehabilitation revolution is based on their appreciation that the electorate would not accept what was being proposed. I believe that the public would accept these amendments if they knew how ill served they are by the punishment agenda, which is preached by such as the Daily Mail and regrettably swallowed by too many people who should know better.
	It is often said that there are no votes in prisons. I absolutely agree because they are inanimate objects and the voting issue should not be prisons but the prisoners they contain. The aim of the criminal justice system is to protect the public by preventing reoffending. In line with this, the role of both prisons and probation is to protect the public by rehabilitating those awarded a custodial or community sentence so that they live useful and law-abiding lives on release. That is achieved by first assessing what has prevented their doing so thus far, and then attempting to rectify that in the time made available by the sentence of the court.
	In any civilised country, which is what we purport to be, the deprivation of liberty, imposed by a sentence, is the only punishment allowed in this process. Further punishment through the way in which sentences are administered is not to be tolerated, which is why I so deplore the addition of the word to the roles of the prison and probation services, and its inclusion in the Title of the Bill. To emphasise No. 10's error, anyone reading or listening to our deliberations on Part 3 of the Bill in particular would realise that rehabilitation is what they are all about.
	At present, as has been mentioned many times during the passage of the Bill, the reoffending rate is disgracefully high, which suggests that the present system is failing to protect the public. One of the main reasons for this is the shortage of positive activities in prison or probation to encourage and enable useful and law-abiding living on release. In light of this, I would have expected the unprotected public to protest and ask Ministers why and what they were doing about it. Every constituent should harry their MP into pressuring the Government to make the necessary resources available to enable their better protection. If the Daily Mail really was the responsible newspaper that it claims to be, I would expect it to lead this charge, challenging successive Governments to better protect the electorate, rather than cynically trying to increase its circulation by sensationalising criminals. In other words, the continuing failure of our criminal justice system should be made a regular election issue on which every Government should expect be called to account.
	It is quite clear that the Secretary of State recognises this, which is why I so strongly support the intent of his proposed rehabilitation revolution. However, I have warned him many times, as I have mentioned in connection with many of the amendments that I have tabled to the Bill, that until and unless he improves the management of offenders, which has failed the public for so long, his intent will not be realised for all the wrong reasons. He will also need the support of his Cabinet colleagues as well as the public, who must be educated so that they understand what structured rehabilitation is all about. It is not a soft option; it rightly makes demands on offenders. However, its provision is crucial to the protection of the public. It therefore makes no sense to confuse either Cabinet colleagues or the public by giving Bills wrong and misleading Titles. That is why I so wish that my amendment could have been taken at the beginning, rather than have to wait until the end of proceedings on the Bill.
	I know the Minister will say that this is above his pay grade. However, bearing in mind the early support that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the rehabilitation revolution-support replicated on all sides of this Committee-I hope that the Minister, having accepted my amendments, will be able to persuade No. 10 to reverse its decision and restore the original, positive, accurate and meaningful "rehabilitation" to its rightful place in the Title, instead of the nihilist, populist and meaningless "punishment". I beg to move.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As we come to the end of the Bill, I feel I must speak for many of us in saying how much we admire and welcome his consistent and valiant leadership on these issues. The House is all the better for his presence, experience, and what he has to say on the basis of that experience.
	If the Bill really has had its Title changed by the intervention of No. 10 from "rehabilitation" to "punishment", that is a very gloomy story indeed. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my saying that I would be perfectly happy with a Title which referred to both punishment and rehabilitation because I am one of those who are absolutely convinced that it is part of a civilised society that crime must be punished. However, I also happen to agree very strongly with the noble Lord that the punishment is the deprivation of liberty and the singling out of a person as somebody who must be deprived of liberty. The challenge right from day one is how you enable that person to change their behaviour and become a positive member of society.
	I am sorry if I have to repeat what I have said several times in debates in this House; namely, that this issue matters for several reasons. First, it is a wicked waste of taxpayers' money to have any other policy because if you do not succeed with rehabilitation there will be reoffending, more trials and the costs arising from further punishment and further deprivation of liberty. That is a waste of taxpayers' money. Secondly, if we are a civilised society, we surely care desperately about the person. We are not being sentimental but saying, "This person should be enabled to become a decent member of society". That is the real challenge for a civilised society. Just to shut somebody away and put them to one side is a condemnation of the real strength of civilisation and of a society itself because it shows that we are not confident that we can win that person back into a positive position. It is very unfortunate that, aided and abetted by the worst elements in the press, this is somehow seen as a feeble approach; I was going to say a "bleeding heart liberal" approach. However, it is not: it is a muscular, tough approach. It is saying what needs to be done and why it needs to be done.
	This issue also matters desperately because successful rehabilitation will ensure that that person will not reoffend. Of course, there will be some sad cases in which, try as you might, rehabilitation will not succeed. It is just being starry eyed to pretend that that is not the case. However, the challenge must always be to try to achieve rehabilitation. The more heinous the crime, the bigger the challenge to try to win that person back into positive citizenship. If we are putting a sane policy before the country, it is terribly wrong to be tentative and apologetic about the concept of rehabilitation. That is misguided, plays to the worst elements of the public gallery and will never win because it is a process of appeasing prejudice, and the appeasing of prejudice will never win the battle.
	I am one of those who believes that a healthy democracy depends upon accountability and leadership -there should be a creative tension between the two-and that, all the time, enlightened leadership should be enabling society itself to move forward in its attitudes by arguing the case and trying to win the arguments. I am afraid that we are always defensive and apologetic when it comes to the attitude towards rehabilitation. We should be rigorous, and say that the people who are against rehabilitation are the very people who are exacerbating the problem of crime and the cost of crime in our society, and it is they who should be in the dock for aiding and abetting crime. It is as blunt as that. We have to come off our defensive, apologetic approach and come to an approach in which we determinedly argue the positive case for rehabilitation.
	For all these reasons, I cannot say how glad I am to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Having known the Minister for as long as I have, and although I said a slightly barbed thing on an amendment a moment or two ago, I cannot believe that, in his heart of hearts or in his very good mind, he does not know the absolute logic of what the noble Lord is proposing and that he would not really prefer to be four-square behind it.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I certainly always wish to join my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham in his belief that rehabilitation is a crucial part of the criminal justice system. I was amazed that we could not attack the Title right at the beginning and talk about this as a rehabilitation Bill. I was sad about that because it seemed to me that many of the proposals within the Bill were, in fact, working towards a much more rehabilitative approach.
	I was also sad about the fact that we have been waiting for this for so long. It is over 40 years since Keith Joseph made his great speech about the cycle of deprivation. That speech was made because he listened to the people who were actually doing the work on the ground. I am very sad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has left because we have relied for years and years on the Church of England to be around to try to help people coming out of prison and do a little to move them in the right direction. There is the whole business of lining up a programme of things that people can be doing as they leave prison that will see them back into a normal life. That requires somewhere to live, some sort of job or training to undertake and, above all, a friend or mentor. Again, these are some of the ideas that have been flowing round, and some of the voluntary and other organisations really want this whole approach to work.
	I know that the Minister has made some very interesting updates to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. However, I cannot say that there were very many indications of really progressive activities that are going to take place, so if, when the Minister replies, he could tell us a little more about what is going to be happening, that would be helpful too.
	I know that it is a late hour, but I must say that I think that the Government have been pushing us. To start such a debate at this hour of the night does not command a great co-operative spirit. It would have been much better if we had been given a reasonable hour at which to debate these important issues.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I have one question: why was the Bill's Title changed?

Lord McNally: It was decided that this was more descriptive of what the Bill was intended to do. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, late yesterday, I tabled Amendment 198, which added to the Long Title,
	"to make provision about the rehabilitation of offenders".
	It is probably the only criticism that I would make of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but I sometimes think that-rather like his desire for committees in the structures we were talking about yesterday-he gets obsessed with form rather than substance. The rehabilitation of offenders is in the Bill. What is more important, it is in the daily action of the Ministry of Justice. Ever since I became the Minister, every day I have emphasised the importance of rehabilitation, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave. It is a win-win. If you can rehabilitate, you save the public purse from having to put someone in prison again at a cost of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. You save future victims from the crimes that that person would have committed. Actually, it is a triple whammy, because if you can really rehabilitate, you get a taxpaying, constructive member of society. Everything that we have been doing, especially in Part 3 and the piloting programmes, is aimed to get effective rehabilitation.
	I am very much impressed at the attention paid to my speeches at Liberal Democrat conferences. I shall take even more care over them in future. As for the rest, you will have to wait for my memoirs. I do not think that changing the Short Title at this stage of the process is helpful or will have an effect.
	On what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said right at the end, this is an extra half day in Committee for the Bill. Perhaps if we all made a resolution to make shorter speeches, we would not find ourselves debating these issues at 23.33. In the mean time, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I was going to say how pleased I was that the noble Lord had recognised that I commended him on Amendment 198, which appeared last night. I am sorry that he has completely misunderstood what I have been saying throughout the Bill, because I have been arguing against committees, not for them, and for people to lead what happens rather than committees.
	This is not about the form but about the Title. I was saddened to hear the Minister say that punishment represents what it is all about rather than rehabilitation, because that is not what I take away from what has happened during Committee. That is not what I take away from the intent expressed by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State in his rehabilitation revolution. I hope very much that that reflected the lateness of the hour rather than the real motivation behind what is going on inside the Ministry of Justice.
	I shall reflect on the wise thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who, with his usual mixture of passion and compassion, hit several nails well on the head. However, at this late hour, and bearing in mind that I preserve the right to bring this matter back on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 196A, in substitution for Amendment 196, withdrawn.
	Clause 137 agreed.
	Long Title
	Amendment 197 not moved.
	Amendment 198
	 Moved by Lord McNally
	198: Long Title, line 9, after "cautions;" insert "to make provision about the rehabilitation of offenders;"
	Amendment 198 agreed.
	Long Title, as amended, agreed.
	House resumed.
	Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 11.36 pm.